A guide to complete streets

The purpose of this Complete Streets guide is to provide King County jurisdictions with the information and tools to develop, adopt and implement Complete Streets ordinances and street designs. At a time when public health, environmental degradation, livability and economic concerns are at a forefront in cities across King County (and throughout the United States), Complete Streets provides a unique opportunity for communities to address many of these issues. Complete Streets can provide communities with a framework for utilizing public streets in ways that encourage people to walk, bike and take public transportation—all of which have positive implications for health, the environment, quality of life and local economies.

a guide to
complete streets
Made possible by funding from
the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County
Produced by
table of contents
introduction
2
The Need for Complete Streets
5
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
What are Complete Streets?
6
The History of Complete Streets
7
The Goals of Complete Streets
8
The Benefits of Complete Streets
8
Who Should Be Involved in Adopting Complete Streets Policy?
11
Where Should Complete Streets Be Implemented?
11
When Is the Best Time to Introduce Complete Streets to Your Community?
12
Taking Complete Streets to the Next Level: Context Sensitive Design
13
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
State of the Practice
14
Local Case Studies
16
Complete Streets Policy Initiation, Formulation and Adoption
18
Policy Initiation and Formulation
18
Policy Adoption
19
Elements of a Good Complete Streets Policy
20
Additional Policy Tool: Complete Streets Checklist
21
Exemptions and Exceptions to a Complete Streets Policy
22
Draft Ordinance Language
23
chapter 3: designing complete streets
Overview
24
Unique Users & Needs
24
A History of (In)Complete Streets
25
Street Typologies
27
Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County
table of contents
3
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
Engineering Considerations
32
Design Considerations
33
Street Standards and Design Guidelines
35
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
Overview
38
Road Diets
38
Complete Streets Treatment Toolbox
39
Complete Streets for Bicycles
39
Complete Streets for Pedestrians
43
Complete Streets for Transit
47
chapter 6: measurement and funding
Measurement
49
Funding Strategies
49
Works Cited
51
Recommended Resources
53
Appendix
54
Appendix A: Washington State Complete Streets Ordinances
Appendix B: NPLAN Complete Streets Guidance
Appendix C: Seattle Complete Streets Checklist
Appendix D: USDOT Routine Accommodation
Appendix E: USDOT Policy Guidance
Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
introduction
4
The purpose of this Complete Streets guide is to provide King County
jurisdictions with the information and tools to develop, adopt and implement
Complete Streets ordinances and street designs. At a time when public
health, environmental degradation, livability and economic concerns are at
a forefront in cities across King County (and throughout the United States),
Complete Streets provides a unique opportunity for communities to address
many of these issues. Complete Streets can provide communities with a
framework for utilizing public streets in ways that encourage people to walk,
bike and take public transportation—all of which have positive implications
for health, the environment, quality of life and local economies.
moving in the right direction, the passage of an ordinance affirmed their
belief in creating streets that work for all users. “It’s another piece of the
puzzle that reaffirms our commitment to moving in a different direction than
Redmond was in the last 30 years,” explained Principal Planner Joel Pfundt
(American Planning Association 2010, 54).
Redmond, Washington is a traditional suburban style community that has
undergone a number of incremental changes in its outlook and approach
to urban planning and design. In September 2007, Redmond became the
third community in the Puget Sound region to adopt a Complete Streets
ordinance. The city had taken note of other local municipalities’ efforts to
accommodate all roadway users and with the assistance of Cascade Bicycle
Club and Transportation Choices Coalition, Redmond codified the steps it
had already taken in its comprehensive and transportation plan to create a
balanced, multimodal transportation network.
The guide is divided into sections that address both the policy and design
considerations of Complete Streets development and implementation. Case
studies are included to provide examples of best practices and innovative
approaches to Complete Streets.
The idea that streets and sidewalks are public spaces and should therefore
accommodate all users of the roadway helped build support among
constituents and elected officials. Though city staff already felt they were
This guide was developed for city staff (planners, designers, engineers,
public works officials, etc.), elected officials and the general public in King
County jurisdictions; however, the information presented should be useful to
jurisdictions across the country.
Chapter 1 provides the reader with the basics of Complete Streets, including
history, goals and the benefits of adopting a Complete Streets policy.
Chapter 2 discusses policy initiation, formulation and adoption, as well
as elements of a good policy and typical challenges municipalities may
encounter with Complete Streets policies.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are focused on the design and engineering of Complete
Streets on the ground. Chapter 3 discusses the difference between
conventional street design and design of a Complete Street. Chapter 4 goes
into further detail of engineering and design considerations and Chapter
5 provides the reader with a Complete Streets design toolbox and photos
illustrating a wide variety of Complete Streets treatments.
Chapter 6 briefly discusses measurement and funding strategies.
Curb extensions, well-marked crosswalks, wide sidewalks and Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant curb ramps help make Redmond streets safer and more accessible for all
roadway users. Photos: Max Hepp-Buchanan
Each chapter is capable of standing alone and can be read independently
according to the reader’s interests. The Appendices provide additional
information that may be useful to the reader such as model Complete Streets
ordinances, Complete Streets checklists and United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) policies relating to the accommodation of bicycles
and pedestrians. Additional information can be found on the National
Complete Streets Coalition website (www.completestreets.org).
introduction
5
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
The Need for Complete Streets
In King County jurisdictions, and in most cities
across the United States, transportation systems
have been designed primarily around the
automobile. The need for making our streets more
accessible and safe for all modes of transportation
is significant, not only to reduce death and injury
from collisions, but to address broader health,
environmental and economic concerns. There
are numerous opportunities within King County
cities to retrofit streets to serve more users and to
assure that new streets are not built in ways that
have historically neglected other users, such as
pedestrians and bicyclists. By adopting Complete
Streets ordinances, King County jurisdictions
can begin the process of redesigning their
transportation infrastructure to serve all users.
A senior housing community on Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Linden Ave North corridor demonstrates the need for roadway improvements that
better accommodate all users, namely senior and disabled residents. Photos: Max Hepp-Buchanan
Redmondâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neighboring city of Kirkland uses signage, pedestrian crossing flags, well-marked crosswalks and ADA compliant curb
ramps to accommodate elderly and disabled residents. Photo: Max Hepp-Buchanan
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
What are Complete Streets?
City streets are key public spaces that often make up much of the developed
land in the urban environment. Across America, however, streets are frequently
built to facilitate the movement of motor vehicles above all other users. Over
the years, less attention has been paid to design features like sidewalks and
bike lanes that make streets safe and pleasant places to walk or bike. Complete
Streets are designed and built for all users and therefore serve everyone.
Pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and drivers all benefit from Complete
Streets design, as do people with disabilities, elderly persons and children. The
Complete Streets movement seeks to change the way transportation agencies
and communities approach street projects to ensure safety, convenience and
accessibility for all (American Planning Association 2010).
Some policies have been developed very quickly by using the resources
of the National Complete Streets Coalition or the USDOT Guidance on
Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. In other cases, communities
have engaged in an extensive development process. However the legislation
or ordinance is adopted, the National Complete Streets Coalition has
identified 10 elements that should appear in every comprehensive Complete
Streets policy document (American Planning Association 2010, 24).
A Good Complete Streets Policy:
1.
Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete
its streets
2.
Specifies that “all users” includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit
passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as automobile drivers and
transit and delivery vehicle operators
3.
Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive,
integrated, connected network for all modes
4.
Is adoptable by all relevant agencies to cover all roads
5.
Applies to both new and retrofit projects—or major maintenance
projects—including design, planning, maintenance and operations
for the entire right-of-way
6.
Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that
requires high-level approval of exceptions
7.
Directs the use of the latest and best design standards while
recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs
8.
Directs that Complete Streets solutions will complement the desired
context of the community;
9.
Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes
10.
Includes specific next steps for implementing the policy
What a Complete Streets Policy Looks Like on Paper
Complete Streets policies come in many shapes and sizes. A simple
resolution passed by a city council may direct the city’s transportation
agency to accommodate the needs of all users. A planning department
may work with community members to include Complete Streets goals
in city comprehensive plans. Policy makers may pass Complete Streets
laws and ordinances at the state or local level. The Alliance for Bicycling
and Walking (formerly Thunderhead Alliance), in their Guide to Complete
Streets Campaigns (2006), defines a good Complete Streets policy as “one
that achieves a planning, design and project development process with a
constellation of new training, new procedures and design manual changes
that put bicycling, walking, and transit on a par with motor vehicles” (8).
Complete Streets Legislation in Seattle States:
“…transportation improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities that are
recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, including: street and sidewalk lighting;
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; access improvements for freight; access
improvements, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit
facilities accommodation including, but not limited, to pedestrian access improvement to
transit stops and stations; street trees and landscaping; drainage; and street amenities…”
(City of Seattle 2007)
The full text of Seattle’s Complete Streets ordinance is located in Appendix A
of this guide.
6
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
What a Complete Street Looks Like on the Ground
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Complete Streets are designed and implemented to enable safe access for
all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users of
all ages and abilities are able to move safely along and across a Complete
Street. While there is no one prescription for a Complete Street, features can
include:
•
Wide sidewalks that are in good condition
•
Bicycle lanes that meet design standards
•
Frequent opportunities for pedestrians to cross the street at varying
rates of speed
•
Refuge medians on wider streets that provide pedestrians with a
“safe haven” while crossing
•
Bus shelters and crossings proximate to transit stops
•
Dedicated transit lanes
•
Raised and/or colored crosswalks
•
Audible pedestrian signals for the blind
•
Sidewalk bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances
•
Pedestrian-scale street lighting
•
Striped shoulders
motor vehicles. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
(1991) and later the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (1998) were passed containing explicit language on providing bicycle
and pedestrian provisions in transportation projects. TEA-21 specifically
stated that “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall
be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction
and reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and
pedestrian use are not permitted” (Section 1202). The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) also reinforced the need for routine and equitable accommodation.
In 1999, USDOT adopted a policy statement recommending an approach
for accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel. The full text of
Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach
(2008) can be found in Appendix D.
In late 2003, the term “Complete Streets” was coined by America Bikes, a
coalition of leaders from the bicycle community, as they developed a new
policy initiative. The Complete Streets concept was defined by America Bikes
as a policy that “ensures that the entire right-of-way is routinely designed and
operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists
and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along
and across a complete street” (American Planning Association 2010, 3). A
variety of practitioner organizations and stakeholder interest groups were
More detail on Complete Streets policy development, design
guidance and implementation is provided later in this guide.
The History of Complete Streets
During the 1990s, in response to public support and advocacy
for improved conditions for bicycling and walking, Congress
spearheaded a movement towards a transportation system
that prioritized the movement of people and goods over
A Complete Street is for people (young and old), cars, bicycles, transit—everyone.
Image: http://sfbikecoalition.wordpress.com/category/day-in-the-life/page/5
7
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
invited to join the newly created Complete Streets Task Force. In 2006,
the task force evolved into the National Complete Streets Coalition, which
included founding members of the American Planning Association (APA),
Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP), America Bikes,
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Smart Growth America,
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), America Walks and a number of other
groups. All of the coalition member organizations pushed for the adoption of
Complete Streets policies, and in 2008 and 2009, policy adoption began to
accelerate.
The Goals of Complete Streets
Why does a community need Complete Streets? Historically, and still today,
streets—although technically public spaces—have been planned, designed,
constructed and managed primarily for use by private motor vehicles.
Communities have treated multimodal projects separately from road projects
and have devoted to them, by necessity, additional planning, funding and
effort.
Conventional street design excludes a large segment of the population
and often exacerbates environmental, economic and social problems.
Traffic congestion, insufficient pedestrian and bicycle safety, decentralized
development patterns, air pollution, unnecessarily high vehicle miles traveled
and adverse health outcomes, such as disabling injuries, death and increased
rates of chronic and cardiovascular disease, are all reasons why communities
are deciding to revise their transportation decisions and policies around
Complete Streets principles. With Complete Streets, projects as small as
repaving can provide the opportunity to make improvements for all users.
The ultimate goal of a Complete Streets policy is to ensure that roadways
provide safe, efficient and complete transportation networks for all users.
The Benefits of Complete Streets
Communities benefit widely from Complete Streets implementation.
Complete Streets Spokane, a coalition of local advocates, has developed a
Complete Streets advocacy campaign that describes many reasons to pursue
a Complete Streets ordinance for the city, including improved public health
and safety, economic revitalization and improved livability. The efforts of
Spokane’s local champions, advocacy organizations and elected officials have
resulted in a resolution passed on April 5, 2010 that authorizes the city to
take the next steps necessary to develop an enforceable policy. Meanwhile,
Sedro-Woolley, a smaller Washington state community of 10,000 residents,
passed a Complete Streets ordinance on June 14, 2010 that ensures bicycle
and pedestrian ways are accommodated in the planning, development and
construction of transportation facilities.
Other benefits to a community pursuing a Complete Streets policy include
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lower transportation costs and increased
access and mobility through the creation of well-connected transportation
networks—important factors when considering issues of community equity.
Many of these benefits are described in greater detail below.
Equitable Access and Mobility
Rural communities and small towns tend to have higher concentrations of
older adults and low-income citizens, two populations that are less likely
to own cars or drive. Indeed, more than 1.6 million rural households in
the United States do not have access to a car (National Complete Streets
Coalition n.d.). Without safer roads, those with limited transportation options
have little choice but to walk or bike along high-speed roadways with few
pedestrian or bicycle accommodations, or stay at home. As stated in the
Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan (Seattle Department of Transportation 2009):
Perhaps the most important factor in walking and social justice is choice. When providing
pedestrian facilities, communities allow people to choose how they want to travel. For
those who do not have the option to drive—such as adolescents, those unable to afford a
car, and people with certain disabilities—lack of choice in transportation creates a barrier
to mobility. If automobile travel is the only feasible mode of transportation in a community,
low-income families are placed at a large disadvantage.
Complete Streets provide safer travel options for groups that have limited
access to automobiles, such as children, elderly adults, people with
disabilities and lower-income Americans. A 2004 study by the Surface
Transportation Policy Partnership (STTP) found that one in five Americans
aged 65 years and older do not drive for a variety of reasons, many of which
are beyond personal choice. More than 50 percent of those that do not drive
8
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
stay home on any given day because they lack transportation options—
resulting in reduced trip-making to important locations (e.g. to the doctor),
which disproportionately affects elderly persons in rural and suburban
communities as well as racial minorities. Moreover, the demographics of the
United States are projected to change dramatically over the next 25 years;
the number of Americans age 65 or older will grow from 35 million (2004) to
more than 62 million in 2025. This demographic shift will place even greater
demand on the provision of alternative methods of transportation (Surface
Transportation Policy Partnership 2004).
Public transportation, social service van pools, carpooling and ridesharing
services to reach healthcare, employment, and other resources can be a
lifeline in rural and suburban areas, especially for older adults, people with
disabilities, and low-income households (National Complete Streets Coalition
n.d.). In addition, children are more likely to walk or bike to school when
sidewalks and bike lanes are present, when there are safe street crossings
and when automobile speeds are reduced in school zones (American
Planning Association 2010, 6). People in wheelchairs or who have vision
impairments also benefit from Complete Streets: poorly designed streets
can prevent them from accessing essential amenities such as transit and
neighborhood retail.
Creating sufficient walking, bicycling and—where available—public
transportation options for rural and suburban residents builds a more
accessible and safe community for people of all ages, abilities and income
levels. Equity is a recurring theme when discussing the additional benefits
of Complete Streets policy—in some cases, it is impossible to discuss the
various benefits of Complete Streets without addressing equity issues.
Public Health
The transportation infrastructure associated with Complete Streets—such
as well connected, narrow streets; sidewalks; bicycle lanes; crosswalks;
and street furniture—makes walking and bicycling more inviting within the
community. These elements of the built environment affect physical activity,
stress, noise, air pollution, traffic, access to healthful food and other risk
factors for obesity and chronic disease, mental illness, respiratory illness,
injury and death (American Planning Association 2010, 4).
Research has consistently found that residents of walkable communities have
measurably higher physical fitness levels and lower rates of obesity than
residents of more automobile-oriented communities (Frank and Kavage 2008,
215). A study of Atlanta residents found that people living in more walkable
neighborhoods were 35 percent less likely to be obese than those in the least
walkable neighborhoods (Frank, Andresen and Schmid 2004). In response
to studies such as these and a 127 percent increase in adult obesity rates in
the community, Moses Lake, Washington, adopted a “Healthy Communities
Action Plan”. Though not necessarily a Complete Streets ordinance, the city’s
new zoning rules require wider sidewalks and other features that improve
accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists (National Complete Streets Coalition
n.d.). Similarly, the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health adopted a
resolution urging decision makers in all Pierce County municipalities to adopt
and implement Complete Streets policies to promote healthy living (National
Complete Streets Coalition n.d.).
Safety
A fundamental impetus behind Complete Streets is the need to provide
safe access to public rights-of-way. Close to 5,000 pedestrians and bicyclists
die each year on U.S. roads and more than 70,000 are injured. In the United
States, pedestrians and bicyclists comprise approximately 13 percent of all
traffic fatalities, while representing 12 percent of trips. Meanwhile, these
modes only receive about two percent of the federal funding, which has
resulted in streets that don’t safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians
(Cohen 2010). Residents of rural and suburban towns are more likely to
be hurt or killed in or along the transportation system than those in urban
areas. For example, in 2006, 23 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural
areas, yet 56 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural areas (National
Complete Streets Coalition n.d.). Higher driving speeds on rural roads
and arterials are also more likely to cause fatalities: 68 percent of fatal
crashes on rural roads occurred when the posted speed limit was 55 miles
per hour or higher (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.). In addition,
over 40 percent of annual pedestrian fatalities occur on roads that have
no crosswalks, and are more prevalent in rural and suburban communities
(American Planning Association 2010, 4).
9
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
Complete Streets serve to reduce collisions with pedestrians through
comprehensive safety improvements such as sidewalks, raised medians,
better bus stop placement, traffic calming measures and treatments for
disabled travelers. Complete Streets also encourage safer bicycling. A recent
review of bicyclist safety studies found that the addition of well-designed
bicycle-specific infrastructure such as on-road bicycle lanes tends to reduce
injury and crash risk by about 50 percent (National Complete Streets
Coalition n.d.).
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Climate Change
Because walking, bicycling and taking transit are low- to no-emissions
options for travel, shifting trips commonly made by automobile to lowercarbon modes can be a successful strategy for meeting greenhouse gas
reduction targets. The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey found
that 50 percent of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less, and
28 percent of all metropolitan trips are one mile or less. These distances are
easily traversed by foot or bicycle, yet 65 percent of trips under one mile
are now made by automobile (U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics n.d.).
By making walking, biking and transit safer and more enjoyable, many of
these short automobile trips could be converted to other forms of travel. By
using transit instead of driving to work, a solo commuter can reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 20 pounds per day, or more than 4,800 pounds in a
year (Davis and Hale 2007, 12). Walking and biking are zero-emission forms
of travel; according to the World Watch Institute, replacing an automobile
trip of four miles with a bicycle would keep 15 pounds of pollutants from
entering the air.
Connectivity
Well-designed and connected Complete Streets make travel more efficient
by providing increased access to other transportation modes of (walking,
biking, transit) and more route choices. Some communities with Complete
Streets policies have included provisions designed specifically to increase
connectivity, for example, by requiring new developments to connect
into the existing grid in multiple locations (National Complete Streets
Coalition n.d.). A number of built-out suburban communities with sprawling
residential networks have looked for opportunities to create more non-
motorized connections by installing paths that connect cul-de-sacs and other
disconnected streets to nearby roads. Even when roads are well-connected
for automobile travel, there may still be a need to connect walking and
biking networks. Seattle’s Complete Streets ordinance is helping to identify
transportation network gaps and prioritize investments that create complete
networks for all modes (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.) Design
that promotes walking, biking and transit can result in connected streets that
reduce traffic congestion by dispersing traffic and offering additional travel
options.
Livable Communities
More than half of Americans recently surveyed would like to walk more
and drive less (Bureau of Transportation Statistics n.d.). Poor community
design and lack of pedestrian facilities are the primary reasons people cite
for why they do not walk more (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.).
Fortunately, communities are increasingly moving toward more traditional
development patterns to meet their residents’ desire for choices in shopping,
recreation, housing and sustainable transportation (National Complete
Streets Coalition n.d.).
It is worth noting here that Zillow (www.zillow.com), an online real estate
marketplace that assists potential homebuyers locate information about
specific properties for sale in Washington state (and other states across the
country), recently started using Walk Score (www.walkscore.com) to help rate
property locations (Meyers 2009). Walk Score helps determine the walkability
of an individual home with an algorithm that awards points based on the
proximity of essential amenities such as neighborhood centers, mixeduse development, schools and employers, parks and most importantly—
Complete Streets (Walk Score n.d.). This recent and meaningful development
shows that walkability and livability have become an important factor to
people when deciding where to live.
Complete Streets also compliment Smart Growth development. A better
integration of land use and transportation through Complete Streets creates
an attractive combination of buildings and street design, increases safety,
and encourages “active” modes of transportation (walking and biking).
10
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
Economic Revitalization
a detailed revision of design standards and right-of-way manuals.
Creating infrastructure for non-motorized transportation and transit, while
lowering automobile speeds through changed road geometry, can improve
economic conditions for both business owners and residents. A network of
Complete Streets is more safe and appealing to residents and visitors, which
is beneficial for retail and commercial development. When Valencia Street
in San Francisco reduced its traffic lane widths to accommodate other users,
nearly 40 percent of merchants reported increased sales, and 60 percent
reported more area residents shopping locally (National Complete Streets
Coalition n.d.). Complete Streets also boost the economy by increasing
residential property values, as homeowners are generally willing to pay more
to live in walkable communities (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.).
In Pierce County, Washington, the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health
spearheaded policy development through its concerns about residents’
sedentary lifestyles. The Board prompted a call for “elected officials,
government agencies, private businesses, the food industry, health care
providers, schools, parents and community organizations [to] immediately
adopt and begin to implement recommended policies and practices to
reduce the consumption of excessive calories and promote increased
physical activity” (American Planning Association 2010, 10). In July and
August of 2008, the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Complete
Streets Resolution and the Pierce County Council Complete Streets
Resolution were developed and adopted. The Board’s Complete Streets
resolutions called for improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along
with programs to increase the availability and accessibility of opportunities
for physical activity in new developments, near schools and within
neighborhoods (American Planning Association 2010, 10).
Transportation Costs
Transportation is the second largest expense for American households,
costing more than food, clothing and even health care (National Complete
Streets Coalition n.d.). For families and individuals who live in sprawling areas
that lack sidewalks, bike lanes and convenient public transit facilities, these
high costs are nearly unavoidable (McCann n.d.). Household transportation
expenses can be reduced if local infrastructure supports mobility needs
without necessitating automobile ownership. When residents have the
opportunity to walk, bike or take transit, they have more control over their
expenses. Indeed, households located near public transit facilities drive an
average of 16 fewer miles per day compared to similar households without
transit access, saving them hundreds of dollars each year (National Complete
Streets Coalition n.d.).
Who Should Be Involved in A dopting Complete
Streets Policy?
There is no prescription for the development and adoption of a Complete
Streets policy, though doing so may include several steps. For example,
in Seattle, the concept of Complete Streets was first included in a special
funding measure and then formally adopted through an ordinance that
covered all transportation funds and projects (American Planning Association
2010, 10). Many communities have begun with a simple resolution that led to
The story of Pierce County illustrates the power of political partnership,
local government staff support, community outreach and alignment
with other community problems in the Complete Streets policy-making
process. Just as Complete Streets benefit everyone, so can virtually anyone
undertake an effort to design and adopt a Complete Streets policy in a
community.
Where Should Complete Streets Be Implemented?
Complete Streets can be planned, designed and constructed in communities
of all sizes, from rural towns to suburbs to urban cities. Complete Streets
legislation can even be passed at the state-wide level. Currently, 23 states
across the nation have provisions that qualify as Complete Streets policies.
Every street to which pedestrians and cyclists are legally allowed access can
and should, in its own way, be a Complete Street. In short, every road from
the bustling central business district arterial to the small town main street
should allow equal access for all users. Complete Streets, however, will look
different in rural communities than they do in their more urban counterparts.
In smaller suburban towns and cities, low-speed roads with on-street parking,
11
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
well-marked crossings, and sidewalks with accessible curb cuts lining the
street may best meet the needs of a residential street . For example, an
ordinance in Sedro-Woolley, Washington ensures that bicycling and walking
are safe, convenient options for its 10,000 residents. However that doesn't
mean that every street in their community must have the full complement of
urban amenities (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.).
Complete Streets are important in helping town centers and main streets
thrive as well, by improving street connectivity and allowing everyone to
reach these important community focal points. Many smaller communities
do not control their own main streets, but rather it is the state department
of transportation. Construction or widening of main streets that function as
state highways often compromises pedestrian safety and can have a negative
impact on small-town economies. As such, Complete Streets policies at the
local level help communicate the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision, while policies at the
state level ensure that main streets in smaller towns are safe, accessible and
attractive (National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.).
When Is the Best Time to Introduce Complete
Streets to Your Community?
Complete Streets legislation or elements of Complete Streets can be
introduced at various points in a communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development. For example,
community members might identify the desire to prioritize non-motorized
transportation during a community long-term visioning exercise. Conversely,
a vision for Complete Streets may arise out of a more specific transportation
or other planning process. This section briefly describes various situations in
which it may be timely to introduce Complete Streets to the community.
Planning
A comprehensive plan is a state-mandated guiding document for the
future of an entire community that describes existing conditions, identifies
goals and priorities, and lays out action steps for meeting those goals
(American Planning Association 2010, 37). By including Complete Streets in
a comprehensive plan's transportation section, a community can encourage
the integration of design elements, planning and policies that make nonmotorized travel safer and more convenient.
While comprehensive plans are the guiding document of an entire city,
neighborhood plans lay out the vision of an individual community, or in
some cases, a corridor. These plans provide an opportunity to include more
specific details on Complete Streets elements in a smaller geographic area.
Almost all of the nearly 40 different neighborhoods in Seattle have their
own neighborhood plans. Some are quite different than others in the way
bicycling and walking are prioritized. Neighborhood plan development is
a good opportunity for a community to express its views and priorities with
regards to non-motorized travel and safety.
Finally, many jurisdictions have standalone bicycle, pedestrian or transit
plans. These plans are critical documents that guide the future of
communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; transportation systems. Ensuring that Complete Streets
policy and design are addressed in the transportation planning process and
subsequent updates is an important step in implementing Complete Streets
goals.
Standards, Policies and the Development Process
Planners and engineers write and amend standards, policies and incentives
that guide what, where and how things are built and/or preserved. Tools
included in these documents include zoning codes, subdivision codes,
design guidelines and manuals and other regulations and ordinances. Not
only should communities review these existing tools to identify how to better
incorporate Complete Streets, but any time a new policy, code, guideline,
etc. is created, Complete Streets standards should be worked into the
language.
Planners and engineers also review project applications for consistency
with applicable plans, standards and policies. While goals and standards
for Complete Streets should be addressed in plans and regulations, the
development process is another opportune time to make sure these goals
and standards are met or exceeded.
12
chapter 1: the basics of complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Public Investment
All towns, cities and counties at some point undertake major investments
in infrastructure and community facilities. Planners and transportation staff
should be involved in investment decisions, as these choices have the ability
to substantially affect the design and location of transit, streets, sidewalks,
bikeways and other infrastructure and facilities so that they are consistent
with Complete Streets. For example, capital improvement programs (CIPs)
typically lay out public improvements and associated costs over a set
time period. By taking an active role in their cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CIP, planners, engineers
and transportation staff can make sure that public investments reflect a
commitment to Complete Streets ideals.
A more immediate opportunity for making Complete Streets improvements
comes when utility or road work is being done, such as undergrounding
overhead utilities or upgrading sewer lines (American Planning Association
2010, 43). As the road infrastructure is torn up, improvements to streets
and intersections can be made, such as the installation of sidewalks and
crosswalks. Another opportunity to incorporate Complete Streets design
exists when streets are being resurfacedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;changing the paint on a road, also
known as rechannelization, is sometimes the only thing a city needs to do in
order to install bike lanes or crosswalks.
Taking Complete Stree ts to the Next Level:
Cont ext Sensitive Design
Conventional roadway design standards define features such as minimum
lane width, design speed and minimum parking supply. They often reflect
the assumption that bigger-and-faster-is-better, resulting in wider roadways
and higher design speeds than what may be optimal in a particular situation.
Many of the Complete Streets elements discussed in this chapter may be
prohibited or discouraged by current roadway development practices.
Context Sensitive Design (CSD, also called Context Sensitive Solutions)
refers to roadway standards and development practices that are flexible
and sensitive to individual community values. CSD allows narrower lanes,
lower design speeds, sharper turns and special features not included in
13
generic road design guidelines to help create a more balanced and efficient
transportation system and meet community land use objectives (Victoria
Transportation Policy Institute 2010).
Context Sensitive Design promotes six key principles (University of Minesota
2010):
1.
Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in all
projects.
2.
Involve the public and affected agencies early and continuously.
3.
Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs.
4.
Address all modes of travel.
5.
Apply flexibility inherent in design standards.
6.
Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design.
In short, CSD is not just the installation of bicycle and pedestrian amenities,
but the art of creating public works projects that meet the needs of the
community residents, the neighboring communities and the environment.
This requires careful planning, consideration of different perspectives and
tailoring designs to particular project circumstances. Early public involvement
can help reduce expensive and time-consuming rework later on and thus
contributes to more efficient project development (University of Minesota
2010).
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
State of the Practice
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Types of Policy and Legislation
Across the United States, policies have been adopted through a variety
of approaches, including legislation, resolutions, tax ordinances, internal
policies, executive orders and updates to plans, manuals and design
standards. Complete Streets policies can be adopted through any of these
means, however an ordinance is the most enforceable approach. Some
communities, however, prefer to adopt a resolution or incorporate Complete
Streets language into a plan prior to adopting an ordinance. The chart below
illustrates the breakdown of types of Complete Streets policies that exist
throughout the country.
Complete Streets Policies
Take Many Forms
5%
16%
21%
Legislation/Ordinance
Resolution
2%
Tax Ordinance
Internal Policy
18%
Executive Order
36%
2%
Plan
Design Manual
Source: (National Complete Streets Coalition 2010)
In the United States, policies have been adopted at the state, county,
regional and city levels. At the regional level, they are commonly adopted
by the regional metropolitan planning organization (MPO). As of 2010,
179 jurisdictions of all sizes have adopted a Complete Streets policy or
have made a commitment to do so. The Complete Streets movement
has grown significantly in the past couple of years, with 50 jurisdictions
adopting policies in 2010 (to date) and 47 in 2009. Places that made an early
commitment to Complete Streets are beginning to experience the positive
effects. For instance, Boulder, Colorado has experienced tremendous growth
in rates of bicycling (rising from 10.6 percent of work trips in 1990 to 20.5
percent in 2006), walking and transit use as a product of their approach to
Complete Streets (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center n.d.).
Eleven jurisdictions in Washington state have adopted Complete Streets
policies. These jurisdictions range in size from Washington’s largest city
(Seattle) to smaller cities throughout the state, as well as a county-wide
policy in Pierce County. Several other communities are in the process of or
are considering adopting Complete Streets policies for their jurisdictions,
including Spokane, the state’s second-largest city. The table below
(Washington state Complete Streets Policies) categorizes each Washington
state jurisdiction’s policy and quotes the language used to mandate
Complete Streets implementation.
14
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
WASHINGTON STATE COMPLETE STREETS POLICIES
Jurisdiction
Population
Policy Type
Language
Pierce County
813,613
Resolution
“The Pierce County Council requests that the Transportation Plan Update include an assessment of the plan's support of the "Complete
Streets" concept, identification of relevant policies within the plan that support the creation of ‘Complete Streets’, and an identification of
barriers to, and opportunities for, the development of ‘Complete Streets’ throughout Pierce County. The Council further requests that a
specific ‘Complete Streets’ policy be Included within the Transportation Plan Update.”
Seattle
612,000
Ordinance
"A ordinance relating to Seattle’s Complete Streets policy, stating guiding principles and practices so that transportation improvements are
planned, designed and constructed to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users."
Tacoma
204,200
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment;
Design Guidelines
“Support a balanced transportation system; Provide options to reduce environmental impacts; Safely accommodate larger vehicles such as
transit and emergency services; Add cost-effective street design options to Tacoma’s ‘toolbox’; All users and transportation modes to be
considered in street design; Support efforts to make streets safe, attractive and comfortable; Support growth vision for mixed-use centers;
Livability in residential areas; Approaches tailored to existing conditions in Tacoma and to community objectives.”
Everett
104,100
Resolution
“Moved by Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Stonecipher to adopt Resolution No. 6016 recognizing the City of
Everett’s adoption of the Complete Streets Program. Roll was called with all council members voting yes. Motion carried.”
Renton
86,230
Ordinance
“It is the purpose of this section to establish design standards and development requirements... with Complete Streets principles. Complete
Streets principles are to plan, design, and operate streets to enable safe and convenient access and travel for all users including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers, and to foster a sense of place in the
public realm with attractive design amenities.”
Redmond
53,680
Ordinance
“The City of Redmond will plan for, design, and construct all new transportation projects to provide appropriate accommodation for
bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and persons of all abilities in comprehensive and connected networks.”
Kirkland
49,620
Ordinance
“Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be accommodated in the planning, development and construction of transportation facilities, including
the incorporation of such ways into transportation plans and programs.”
University
Place
31,550
Ordinance
“Develop facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists as alternative travel modes to the automobile… Require sidewalk facilities on all public
streets… Develop a system of bicycle routes, both east/west and north/south, that provides for travel within the City with connections to
local parks and regional facilities.”
Issaquah
27,160
Ordinance
“Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be included in the planning, engineering, design and construction of transportation facilities,
including transportation plans and programs.”
Tukwila
18,190
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan
“The Walk and Roll Plan is created to carry out the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It expands the idea of transportation from simply
keeping cars and trucks moving to the idea that Tukwila’s streets ought to be for everyone, whether young or old, motorist or bicyclist,
walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper, shopper or employee. This “Complete Streets” perspective will ensure that Tukwila
residents and visitors can get around as freely as possible with a range of both motorized and non-motorized choices.”
Sedro-Woolley
10,040
Ordinance
“Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be accommodated in the planning, development and construction of transportation facilities, including
the incorporation of such ways into transportation plans and programs.”
Spokane
206,900
Resolution
No ordinance in place yet—five of seven councilmembers voted to enact a Complete Streets policy in Spokane, but the creation of the
ordinance is ongoing.
Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County
15
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
Local Case Studies
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
In Washington, Complete Streets policies, which are primarily
ordinances, have supported the development of a growing bicycle
and pedestrian network, as well as programs that encourage walking
and biking. The sections below discuss some selected local case
studies in Washington state that are notable because of unique
funding mechanisms, roadway treatments, safety programs and other
important elements of Complete Streets policies.
Full text of several notable Washington state cities’ Complete Streets
ordinances can be found in Appendix A.
Seattle
In 2006, Seattle voters passed a nine-year, $365 million
levy for transportation maintenance and improvements
known as “Bridging the Gap”. Among other things, the new
transportation funding was dedicated toward increasing public
transportation speed and reliability, as well as allocating funds
to the creation of Complete Streets. Six months later, the
City Council adopted an ordinance so that all transportation
projects, not just those funded through Bridging the Gap,
would improve travel for all users (American Planning
Association 2010, 59). The results have been impressive. On
Rainier Avenue South, bus bulbs and priority signals through
the corridor help transit operators save time. On Second Avenue and Fourth
Avenue downtown, new street designs include bus bulbs, green bike lanes,
advanced stop bars, “sharrows”, and bus-priority signals.
The Linden Avenue North corridor in north Seattle is currently unsafe for pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit users and the elderly and disabled residents in the area. Photos: Max Hepp-Buchanan
The 67-foot wide cross-section of the Linden Avenue North Complete Streets project provides
users with wide sidewalks, landscaping, and a two-way buffered bicycle facility.
Image: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/linden.htm
Linden Avenue North Complete Streets Project
with disabilities live in the neighborhood.
Between 128th and 145th Streets in the Bitter Lake neighborhood of Seattle,
Linden Avenue North is languishing. There are few sidewalks, curbs or storm
drains, and the shoulders are gravel. The asphalt is in poor condition and
there are few marked crossings. The street in this part of town doesn’t meet
ADA standards, which is a problem because hundreds of seniors and people
In late 2010, however, the Mayor’s budget to fund a full Complete Streets
renovation to the Linden Avenue North corridor was approved by Seattle
City Council. The Linden Avenue North Complete Streets Project proposes
new pavement and markings, continuous sidewalks, curbs and curb ramps,
tree planting on both sides of the street, buffered bicycle facilities and new
street lighting.
16
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Issaquah
In 2007, the City of Issaquah adopted a Complete Streets ordinance which
added to the city’s existing streets improvements program the objective of
retrofitting existing facilities to accommodate more users. The city is currently
developing plans to improve a stretch of Newport Way NW, a road made up
of one lane of vehicle traffic in each direction, as well as narrow shoulders
(less than two feet), ditches and an asphalt walking path on the east side of
the street. About half of the stretch of road is located in a school zone. The
city’s options are either to transform the corridor into a three-lane road with
signalized intersections or to build a two-lane alternative with roundabout
intersections (City of Issaquah, Washington n.d.). Either option would include
significant improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, such as bike lanes
and more comfortable sidewalks.
Kirkland
Also in 2007, the City of Kirkland won the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging Achievement Award, which
recognized the city for its commitment to more than 50 physical activity
programs designed for older adults; investment of $6 million to improve
sidewalk conditions; and innovative pedestrian policies, such as PedFlag
(flags placed at crosswalks to make pedestrians more visible while crossing)
and the Flashing Crosswalk Program (American Planning Association 2010,
17).
University Place
When University Place incorporated in the mid 1990s, the town established
the priority of adding sidewalks to the former county roads. The town was
committed to the idea that all
future road projects would need to
integrate the needs of all users, not
simply motorists. While the term
“Complete Streets” was not in use
at the time, University Place had
essentially shifted to a Complete
Streets paradigm. Bridgeport Way
was one of the first streets to get
a full Complete Streets treatment,
including a landscaped median,
A Complete Street in University Place,
new pedestrian crossings, bicycle
Washington. Image: http://www.completestreets.
lanes, a multi-use path and improved org/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/
universityplacewa-burden-300x225.jpg
sidewalks. Since incorporation,
University Place has installed 23
miles of sidewalks in addition to some of the first modern roundabouts in the
state of Washington (McCann 2009, 48).
Sedro-Woolley
A crosswalk on one of Kirkland’s busiest arterials uses buffers, curb extensions and a pedestrian
refuge island for shorter crossing distances, as well as pedestrian crossing flags for increased
visibility and safety. Photos: Max Hepp-Buchanan
The rural town of Sedro-Woolley, Washington adopted a Complete Streets
ordinance in 2010, ensuring that bicycling and walking are safe, convenient
options for its 10,000 residents. While Complete Streets in a rural community
like Sedro-Woolley might be implemented differently than in an urban city
like Kirkland, the objective is the same: establishing safe and attractive places
for people to walk and bicycle.
17
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Complet e St reets Poli cy Initiation , Formulation
and Adoption
The development and adoption of a new Complete Streets policy is often
complex and is influenced by a variety of factors and stakeholders. Policies
are usually part of a broader movement, including bicycle and pedestrian
planning, smart growth, community visioning, safety initiatives, climate
protection initiatives and physical activity/health campaigns. Complete
Streets can be adopted through various approaches, including resolutions;
local ordinances; state laws; comprehensive plan amendments; criteria
included within funding measures; internal agency policy directives; and
rewrites of manuals, standards and subdivision ordinances. Policy adoption
varies by jurisdiction—some cities have started with a resolution and later
revised their right-of-way manuals and design standards. For example,
though the City of Tacoma does not yet have an official Complete Streets
ordinance, the city has made comprehensive plan amendments and
established design guidelines that support a balanced transportation system
and considers all transportation modes and roadway users in street design.
Similarly, the City of Tukwila’s bicycle and pedestrian plan (“Walk and Roll”)
was created to carry out the goals of the city’s comprehensive plan in a way
that ensures that Tukwila residents and visitors can get around as freely as
possible with a range of both motorized and non-motorized choices. Lastly,
both the Everett and Spokane City Councils have passed Complete Streets
resolutions for their respective cities and efforts to put ordinances in place
are ongoing.
Concerns with Complete Streets
Before discussing best practices for Complete Streets policy initiation,
formulation and adoption, it is worth discussing the potential barriers and
resistance within a community. Many of the practices discussed below will
help a city or region overcome barriers about adopting Complete Streets.
In a Complete Streets survey of municipalities across the U.S. conducted by
the Thunderhead Alliance, several respondents indicated public resistance
to Complete Streets policies, including landowner resistance to wider rightsof-way, worries about costs and concerns about safety or appropriateness
of accommodation. Some respondents mentioned resistance from specific
groups, such as the local congestion management association (which saw the
move as competing for funds) and the development industry (in cases where
developers are responsible for providing the roads) (Thunderhead Alliance
2006, 20).
In some cases, resistance comes from within the department of transportation
(DOT) itself. Though the DOT may not completely oppose Complete
Streets policies, planners or engineers may initially resist them because
they have questions or concerns about implementation. As demonstrated
in some communities, initial resistance to Complete Streets usually softens
as engineers apply themselves to the task of determining how to make
multimodal accommodation a routine practice (Thunderhead Alliance 2006,
21). Community and government leaders can address this issue early in the
process by providing department staff with opportunities for training. Other
ways to get around resistance to Complete Streets adoption are discussed in
more detail below.
Policy Initiatio n and Formulation
Before legislation can be passed and adopted, a community should define
the need for a Complete Streets policy. Common problems that require
Complete Streets intervention include traffic congestion, insufficient
pedestrian and bicycle safety, noise, decentralized development patterns,
air pollution, unnecessarily high vehicle miles traveled and adverse health
outcomes, such as increased rates of chronic and cardiovascular disease.
These are all reasons why communities decide to revise their transportation
decisions and policies around Complete Streets principles (American
Planning Association 2010, 10). Identifying a community problem that
can be addressed through Complete Streets and identifying the range of
stakeholders affected by that problem are the first steps in the Complete
Streets policy-making process (American Planning Association 2010, 10).
Once the problem has been identified, a community should gather
quantitative evidence to support the need for a Complete Streets policy.
Qualitative evidence is also useful, but statistics provide a better picture of
current and future transportation-related conditions across a geographic
area for different demographic groups in a community (American Planning
Association 2010, 11). Important information can include bicycle and
18
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
pedestrian crash data; bicycle and pedestrian commute trip data, including
the percentage of children or adolescents biking or walking to school;
chronic disease prevalence statistics; rates of obesity and the percentage of a
population that is overweight; population projections; and air pollution data1.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
It is also important to understand how a community currently addresses
transportation issues. This can help in identifying the nature and extent of the
problem, as well as mitigation strategies currently used by the community
(American Planning Association 2010, 12). The following methods can be
used in the process of gathering and analyzing this information:
•
Collection, review and assessment of existing local programs,
projects, plans and policies
•
Identification of best practices from other jurisdictions
•
Compilation and examination of current academic research, studies
and reports developed by universities, advocacy organizations and
other local government departments
•
Formal and informal conversations with political, institutional, private
and public stakeholders
The identification of the needs and interests of an array of community
stakeholders is essential to the successful adoption of a Complete Streets
policy. Planners, public health professionals, traffic engineers, policy makers,
developers, business owners and residents will likely be concerned with
differing elements of a particular transportation corridor’s functionality
and will approach transportation policy from different perspectives. Crossdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination, as well as effective
communication between diverse groups of stakeholders is one of the most
common ways to address concerns related to Complete Streets adoption.
The most successful champions of Complete Streets have convened a variety
of traditional and nontraditional stakeholders to identify common goals, list
mutual benefits and develop a common understanding of the transportation
1 Public Health – Seattle and King County produced a Health of King County Report in 2006 that examines the
health status of King County residents and recent trends—an important source of health data for King County
municipalities and neighborhoods (http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/data/hokc.aspx).
needs of all users in the community. More and more, communities are
realizing that open communication among stakeholder groups has great
benefits, as does creating advisory boards or task forces of varied community
groups. Convening a multi-stakeholder committee or coalition can help city
staff build both political and public support—two important driving forces of
policy change (American Planning Association 2010, 12).
Policy Adoption
Policy adoption processes vary as much as initiation and formulation
processes, but the most successful policy adoption processes have involved
community groups that ensure the policy covers all stakeholder groups’
concerns: political support, local governmental staff support, public support,
individual champions, partnerships and other stakeholder influences can all
help bring about policy change (American Planning Association 2010, 14).
Building and retaining this kind of support requires education, outreach and
engagement, as the political leadership, government staff or public may
not completely understand the concept, principles and goals of Complete
Streets.
Other factors that can help facilitate the policymaking and adoption process
include (American Planning Association 2010, 18):
•
A single event, hallmark research study, community workshop or
presentation
•
Media advocacy
•
Private or public financial support
•
Other initiatives, regulations or policies
These actions can help educate the community about the environmental,
economic or social issues at stake, supply resources for the problem
identification and quantification stages and provide synergistic support for
other complementary initiatives, regulations or policies (American Planning
Association 2010, 18). The combination of several of the above factors
can create the ideal setting for successful development and adoption of a
Complete Streets policy.
19
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
Elements of a Good Complete Streets Policy
Creates a Network
As stated in Chapter 1, the National Complete Streets Coalition has outlined
10 elements that should appear in a comprehensive Complete Streets policy
(National Complete Streets Coalition n.d.). This section describes those 10
elements in more detail. In addition to the 10 elements discussed below,
Complete Streets should incorporate strong guiding language. For example,
instead of saying “shall be considered in every project”, the language should
read “shall be included in every project”.
Over time, Complete Streets should result in the creation of a complete
and—to the greatest extent possible—connected transportation network
for all modes of travel. A network approach helps to balance the needs of
all users. Instead of trying to make each street perfect for every traveler,
communities can create an interwoven array of streets that emphasize
different modes and provide quality accessibility for everyone. This may
result in bicycle boulevards that prioritize the movement of bicycles along
one corridor, dedicated lanes for bus traffic in another, or pedestrian
improvements along routes that are already overflowing with people on foot.
This type of network approach, however, should not result in one type of user
being overly favored while others are required to take long detours.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Sets a Vision
A strong vision can inspire a community to follow through on its commitment.
Just as no two policies are identical, visions differ from community to
community. One community might envision Complete Streets as promoting
health through physical activity and active transportation, while another
may focus on creating streets safe for travel by even the most vulnerable
users—children, older adults and those with disabilities. Select a vision that
is most appropriate and true to your residents through community outreach
and public comment.
Specifies All Users
A true Complete Streets policy is one that addresses the needs of everyone
traveling along the road. A sidewalk without curb ramps presents a significant
obstacle to wheelchair users. An awkwardly placed and inconvenient public
transportation stop without safe crossings does little to benefit public
transportation riders. A four-lane road with no bike lanes will discourage and
possibly endanger bicyclists, while a road with heavy freight traffic must be
planned with those vehicles in mind. Automobile travel is also an important
part of Complete Streets: any change made to better accommodate other
modes of travel will affect the use of personal vehicles, as well.
All Agencies and All Roads
Creating Complete Streets networks is made more difficult by the array of
jurisdictions that may have an interest in or control over one or more of a
community's rights-of-way. Many states, including Washington, maintain a
state highway design manual, deviation from which may require a waiver.
Additionally, streets in some communities are built and maintained by the
local department of transportation (DOT), while others are owned by the
state DOT. Typical Complete Streets policies cover only one jurisdiction’s
roadways, which can cause network problems: a bike lane on one side of a
bridge disappears on the other because the road is no longer controlled by
the agency that built the lane. A good Complete Streets policy is adoptable
by all relevant agencies to cover all roads in a particular community.
All Projects
For many years, multimodal streets have been treated as “special projects”
that require extra planning, funding and effort. The Complete Streets
approach differs in that its intent is to view all transportation projects—large
or small—as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all
users. This principle applies to both new and retrofit projects, including
design, planning, maintenance and operations for the entire right-of-way.
In addition, the safety of all users can be improved within the scope of
pavement resurfacing, restriping or signalization operations.
20
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Exceptions
Making a Complete Streets policy work requires developing a process to
handle exceptions to the general rule of providing accommodations for all
modes in each project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
named three exceptions that have become commonly used in Complete
Streets policies, discussed in more detail below. Many communities have also
developed their own exceptions, such as severe topography constraints. In
addition to defining exceptions, there must be a clear process for granting
them and they should be kept on record and available to the public.
Exceptions and exemptions are discussed in more detail below.
Design Criteria
Communities adopting a Complete Streets policy should review their existing
design policies to ensure their ability to accommodate all modes of travel
while still providing the flexibility required for designers to adapt a project
to unique circumstances. Some communities will opt to rewrite their design
guidelines or right-of-way manual. Others will refer to existing design guides,
such as those issued by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), state design standards and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines.
Context-Sensitive
An effective Complete Streets policy must be sensitive to and complement
the context of an individual community. Being clear about sensitivity to
community context in the initial policy statement can alleviate concerns that
the policy will require inappropriately wide roads in quiet neighborhoods or
miles of little-used sidewalks in rural areas. A strong statement about context
can help align the community’s transportation and land use planning goals.
Performance Measures
The traditional performance measure for transportation planning has been
vehicular level of service (LOS), a measure of automobile congestion through
an intersection or corridor. Complete Streets planning requires that planners
and engineers take a broader look at how the system is serving all users,
in addition to drivers. Examples of ways a Complete Streets policy can be
measured for success include: miles of on-street bicycle routes created;
new linear feet of pedestrian accommodation; changes in the number of
people bicycling, walking, or using public transportation (mode shift); and the
number of new street trees. The fifth edition of Highway Capacity Manual,
due out at the end of 2010, will include a new multimodal LOS standard
that better measures the quality of travel experience. Communities can also
create their own multimodal LOS standard. San Francisco and Charlotte,
North Carolina have already begun to develop their own multimodal
standards.
Implementation
There are four key steps for successful implementation of a Complete Streets
policy: 1) restructure procedures to accommodate all users on every project;
2) develop new design policies and guides; 3) offer workshops and other
training opportunities to planners and engineers and 4) institute better ways
to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving
all users. Some policies establish a task force or commission to help guide
the city toward effective policy implementation.
Additional Policy Tool: Complete Streets Checklist
Communities may also want to consider adding a Complete Streets checklist
to their policy toolkit as a way of ensuring that projects meet the goals of the
Complete Streets policy from the beginning planning stages. For example,
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) uses a bicycle and
pedestrian checklist throughout its project planning, programming, scoping
and final design processes to ensure early consideration of bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations (American Planning Association 2010, 50).
Some examples of questions taken from the PennDOT bicycle and
pedestrian checklist include (American Planning Association 2010, 51):
•
Is the transportation facility included in or related to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities identified in a master plan?
•
Do bicycle/pedestrian groups regularly use the transportation
facility?
21
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
•
Does the existing transportation facility provide the only convenient
transportation connection/linkage between land uses in the local
area or region?
future need. The future clause is important because, although many corridors
are currently unfriendly to pedestrian travel, redevelopment under new
standards could change that.
•
Would the transportation facility (and all users) benefit from widened
or improved shoulders or improved markings (shoulders, crosswalks)?
•
Are sidewalks needed in the area?
•
Is the transportation facility in close proximity to hospitals, elderly
care facilities, or the residences or businesses of persons with
disabilities?
•
Is the transportation facility on a transit route?
•
Is the community considering traffic calming as a possible solution to
speeding and cut-through traffic?
Many communities have developed their own exceptions. A common
exception used by municipalities is ordinary maintenance and repairs,
which reassures planners and engineers that the most basic and routine
maintenance work will not trigger the full reconstruction of an intersection or
corridor (American Planning Association 2010, 29). Several Complete Streets
policies also make exceptions for repaving projects but include a clause to
encourage agencies to take advantage of repaving where appropriate. For
example, the Complete Streets legislation in Illinois states, “Bicycle and
pedestrian ways may be included in pavement resurfacing projects when
local support is evident or bicycling and walking accommodations can be
added within the overall scope of the original network” (American Planning
Association 2010, 29).
The City of Seattle developed its own Complete Streets checklist in January
2010 to ensure that Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) projects
“meet [the City’s Complete Streets] goals and help to sort through potentially
conflicting modal priorities” (Seattle Department of Transportation 2010).
This checklist is included in Appendix C.
Exemp tions and Exc eptions to a Complete S treets
Policy
Ideally, Complete Streets design principles would be applied to every
street in every community. There are circumstances, however, in which this
is not feasible or appropriate. Therefore, an important element of practical
policy implementation is the creation of a process for handling exceptions
to requirements that all modes be accommodated in all projects. In 2000,
FHWA guidance on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel named
three exceptions that have become commonly used in Complete Streets
policies. The first is that accommodation is not necessary on corridors where
non-motorized use is prohibited, such as certain state routes and interstate
freeways. The second principle states that exceptions must be allowed when
the cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or
probable use. The third exception is a documented absence of current or
Other common exceptions include the provision of infrastructure where it
would be detrimental to public safety or inappropriate in light of the scope of
the project; in areas where existing Complete Streets facilities currently exist
or are scheduled for construction; or where there are topographic or natural
resource constraints (Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission
2010).
There is also a common worry among city agencies that Complete Streets
policies will be prohibitively or inappropriately expensive, causing many
communities to provide an exception for cost. The common interpretation
of the FHWA’s “excessively disproportionate” cost principle is any Complete
Streets improvement that adds 20 percent or more to the total project
cost (American Planning Association 2010, 58). This is the ceiling that
Seattle originally accepted as part of its Complete Streets ordinance, but
city planners later decided that every project should be evaluated on an
individual basis. That way, if the Complete Streets improvements add 21
percent to the total project cost, but the benefits outweigh those costs, the
project is deemed just as valid as one where the Complete Streets elements
add 19 percent to the total project cost (American Planning Association
2010, 61).
22
chapter 2: policy guidance and implementation
However defined, it is important that all exceptions require high-level
approval from a designated staff person or elected official(s) to be granted.
Many policies make the head of the transportation department responsible
for approving exceptions, while others require approval by an elected body,
such as the city council (American Planning Association 2010, 30). The
purpose behind assigning exception responsibility to a designated entity is
to ensure that it is possible to figure out in the future why a particular street
lacks particular amenities consistent with the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Complete Streets
policy.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Draft Ordinance Language
Most Complete Streets ordinances follow a similar approach, or template,
and incorporate many of the same provisions. The following section provides
draft language that can be used as a starting point for communities as they
begin to develop a Complete Streets ordinance. This language should be
amended to fit the context of the community and the Complete Streets
characteristics desired. Appendix A includes several examples of model
Complete Streets ordinances that have been adopted in Washington state as
guidance.
In addition to adopting a Complete Streets ordinance, Complete Streets
language should be integrated into community plans and guiding
documents. The National Policy and Legal Analysis Network (NPLAN) has
produced model comprehensive plan language focused on Complete Streets
principles. This language can be used for guidance as communities update
their comprehensive and transportation plans to reflect Complete Streets
goals and objectives. Example NPLAN template language can be found in
Appendix B.
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ______ RELATING TO BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN WAYS ALONG TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
The City Council of the City of ______ do ordain as follows:
Section 1. The _______ Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new
Section _____ to read as follows:
______ Bicycle and pedestrian ways along transportation facilities.
Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be accommodated in the planning,
development and construction of transportation facilities, including the
incorporation of such ways into transportation plans and programs.
Notwithstanding that provision of paragraph (1), bicycle and pedestrian ways
are not required to be established:
Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety;
When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable
use; or
Where there is no current or future identified need.
In instances where an exception under paragraph (2) is granted, it shall be
approved and documented by the Public Works Director.
Passed by majority vote of the ________ City Council in open meeting this
_____ day of ______________, 20xx.
23
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 3: designing complete streets
24
Overvie w
Unique Users & Needs
Creating Complete Streets often means restructuring traditional design
policies, practices and guidelines to support street designs that serve all
users. Many of today’s cities have street design standards that allow for wide
lanes and wide streets, which ultimately facilitate faster motor vehicle speeds
while neglecting other roadway users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
When designing Complete Streets, key considerations should include the
width of the street, pattern and connectivity of the street network, block
length, physical elements along the streetscape, land use and the provision
of bicycle and pedestrian amenities.
A Complete Street is a street that safely accommodates all potential users,
or a street where all users can coexist in a safe environment. With this goal
in mind, it is important first to understand who the users are and what their
specific needs are. Comprehensive evaluation of how streets meet the needs
of the following users should be part of the street planning and design
process (New Haven n.d.):
•
Pedestrians of all ages and abilities—from children to seniors to
disabled individuals
Because streets comprise a significant percentage of the built environment in
the United States, cities are beginning to recognize that the design of these
public spaces is an important determinant of neighborhood character and
quality of life. As cities develop new street design standards, the following
design imperatives are often prioritized (Airport Corridor Transportation
Association n.d.):
•
Bicyclists – primarily commute and utilitarian trip-making, but
recreational routes deserve attention as well
•
Transit users
•
Transit vehicles
•
Emergency access for police, fire and ambulance services
•
Commercial trucks
•
Private motor vehicles
•
Improve functionality and appearance of new streets
•
Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel
•
Reduce the potential for speeding and safety concerns
•
Introduce desirable design elements such as landscaped buffers and
detached sidewalks
•
Shorten block lengths to slow traffic and shorten walking distances
A variety of design treatments can be used to create Complete Streets.
Chapter 4 discusses Complete Streets design considerations, a new
approach to street classification and design standards to better serve all
modes. Chapter 5 presents a Complete Streets Design Toolbox with specific
bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements that can be applied to streets
to improve the accommodation of these modes. Before choosing a specific
design for a street, however, it is important to establish a framework for
determining the needs of each street and the relevant design constraints.
Bicyclists
A bicycle-friendly environment is supported by a well-connected network of
safe and direct bicycling facilities and routes, with slow to moderate speeds
and controlled motor vehicle movements. The Bicycle Level of Service model
identifies specific factors that should be evaluated in determining the overall
bike-friendliness of a route, which include:
•
Average effective width of the outside vehicular through-lane of
travel (includes striping for bike lanes)
•
Volume of motorized traffic on the thoroughfare
•
Speed of motorized traffic on the thoroughfare
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 3: designing complete streets
•
Amount of heavy vehicles/trucks on the thoroughfare
•
Condition of pavement over which bicyclists are expected to ride
25
In designing for pedestrians, people of varying abilities and ages need to
be considered. This includes elderly populations, youth and people with
disabilities.
Pedestrians
Transit Users
There are many design considerations to support and encourage walking
in communities. Historically, pedestrian needs were defined simply as 1)
a sidewalk and 2) the ability to safely cross the street. While these two
considerations are still important, there are other factors that support the
safety, desirability and overall walkability of an area. As outlined in the
Charlotte Urban Street Design Guidelines (2007), pedestrians value features
that:
•
Help shorten walking distances
•
Separate them from moving traffic
Often times, road design does little to support the needs of people who
are riding public transportation. Poor transit design ultimately slows transit
services and discourages people from using the service. Because a person’s
transit experience starts and ends at home, improving the pedestrian
environment within the service area of local and regional transit is important.
In places where there are difficult and unsafe street crossings and a lack of
connected sidewalks and curb ramps, people will be less likely to use public
transit (National Complete Streets Coalition 2009). Generally speaking, transit
riders have the same needs as other pedestrians; however in addition, transit
riders seek (City of Charlotte 2007):
•
Create aesthetically pleasing surroundings
•
•
Protect them from the elements
Accessible bus stops in locations that are not isolated from essential
community amenities and other people
•
Let them walk as safely as possible
•
Easy connections
•
Personal comfort and security while waiting for the bus
•
Street and pedestrian-scale lighting
•
Increased visibility through “eyes on the street” urban design
strategies (such as windows and doorways that face the street)
In addition, good pedestrian design should strive to incorporate the
following (City of New Haven 2010):
•
Pleasant visual environment
•
Continuous and connected pedestrian facilities, separated from
vehicle traffic
•
Short street crossing distances
•
Good mix of land uses
•
Pedestrian scale lighting
•
Slow and controlled motor vehicle movements
Other users that should be considered in Complete Street design include
transit operators, motorists, and people living, working or using adjacent
land uses. In addition, all streets should be designed according to American
Disability Act standards.
A History of (In)Complete Streets
Over the past 50 years, transportation systems in the United States have
been designed to move high volumes of automobile traffic as efficiently
as possible. This type of street design is largely based on a functional
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 3: designing complete streets
Incomplete Streets
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/
photos/completestreets/4080213277/in/set72157607770347211/
classification in which streets
are categorized into a system of
increasing speed and volume.
This approach (conventional street
design) has led to street designs
that prioritize the movement of
motor vehicles over other modes
such as bicycling and walking.
In addition to high speed and
volume arterials, conventional
street design has supported the
development of conventional,
sprawl style subdivisions, where
land uses are highly segregated,
blocks and streets are wide and
long, and there are limited routes
in and out of the neighborhood.
In response to a long history of
auto-oriented street design and
the undesirable outcomes, many
cities are embracing Complete
Streets for reasons including
the health of residents and
communities, the costs associated
Image source: Tessa Greegor, Cascade Bicycle Club
with maintaining and expanding
the current transportation system
and the environmental impacts associated with current transportation
systems. Rethinking the common approach to street design and planning,
however, means accepting a public right-of-way as a street that has many
purposes and should function to balance the needs of all users.
Functional Classification System
The functional classification of roadways is the prevailing concept underlying
existing transportation systems in the United States. This approach to
roadway design has supported the development of auto-dependent
26
Conventional street
communities, where many Americans live today.
design â&#x20AC;&#x153;often leads to
The primary objective of the functional classification
urban roadways dividing
neighborhoods, destroying
system is to move more cars more efficiently. Under
local businesses in
the functional classification system roadways are
established communities
classified as either urban or rural, and as a principal
and creating sterile,
inhospitable streetscapes
arterial, minor arterial, collector or local road. Under
in developing suburbsâ&#x20AC;?
this approach, arterials by their definition are intended (LaPlante and McCann
2008).
primarily to provide mobility with emphasis on
speed and capacity. As a result, arterials have been
designed with wide lanes and large turning radii, supporting fast and efficient
movement of motor vehicles, and neglecting other roadway users such as
bicyclists and pedestrians (LaPlante and McCann 2008).
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Roadway
Services Provided
Arterial
Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed for
the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access
control.
Collector
Provides a less highly developed level of service at a lower
speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads
and connecting them with arterials.
Local
Consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors;
primarily provides access to land with little or no through
movement.
source: Federal Highway Administration
Functional classification is largely based on a relationship between mobility
and land access: as mobility increases, land access decreases. Arterials, for
example, are intended to provide the highest level of service at the greatest
speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access
control. In practice, the functional classification of roadways has resulted in
the concentration of traffic onto collectors and arterials, with few alternative
routes. Cul-de-sac streets connect to higher volume sub-collectors, which
connect to higher volume collectors and ultimately to major arterials. Most
conventional post-war neighborhoods have been designed according to the
same street hierarchy.
The concept of Complete Streets is seen as being at odds with the
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 3: designing complete streets
conventional approach to road design
and the supporting street hierarchy
as mentioned above. The functional
classification is largely based on
moving traffic and generally ignores
the different contexts among different
roadway functions. The decision to move
away from the functional classification
system to a system that focuses on
transportation systems within their
The relationship of functionally classified
systems in serving traffic mobility and land
context is gaining traction throughout
access. Image: http://pedshed.net/blog/
the United States. According to Dan
wp-content/uploads/2009/02/functional_
Burden (1999), designing healthy
classification.gif
streets and neighborhoods in a way that
supports bicycling and walking should
be less dependent on the conventional
road hierarchy and should instead focus on narrow streets, short blocks, high
connectivity, sidewalks and landscaping.
Street Typologies
Cities are beginning to understand the limits of conventional street
design as an approach to designing Complete Streets and creating livable
communities. In response, many cities have developed a new approach to
street design—one that goes beyond the functional classification system
and considers all current and potential users while explicitly considering
the land use context and street function. In order to address the design
related elements of roadways, developing a new system of street typologies
is recommended as an approach to designing Complete Streets while
preserving the functional classification system.
Cities such as Denver, Seattle and Tacoma, have developed street typologies
with the goal of further refining a street classification system in a way that
considers all potential users as well as the land use context. Street typologies
expand upon the functional classification system and provide a framework
for all modes of transportation to be considered in the street design and
planning process, effectively complementing the Complete Streets paradigm.
Street typologies further delineate the needs and characteristics of each
public right-of-way, while in some cases, retaining the functional classification
system. For example, a street typology could be a “mixed-use arterial” rather
than an “arterial”. This new classification presents planners with a more
holistic understanding of how specific streets should be designed to support
the different uses.
The following case studies provide information on cities that have developed
new street typologies and design standards that support Complete Streets
planning and design decisions. Cities can use street typologies to classify the
existing street network and identify where improvements should be made to
improve the functionality of the existing and future street network to support
all users. Street typologies can also bring meaning and understanding to
the public uses of streets and can provide a framework for developing street
design standards and cross-sections that support priority design elements of
each typology.
City of Charlotte
As characteristic of many cities where street networks burgeoned after World
War II, the City of Charlotte was left with a sparse street network, dominated
by cul-de-sacs, limited connections and low-density development. Charlotte’s
historic development patterns led to a street network of large intersections,
wide cross-sections and an inhospitable pedestrian environment. In an effort
to reverse these trends and increase the quality of life for residents, the city
adopted Smart Growth principles in 2001, which included a call to expand
transportation choices. The city developed new street design guidelines that
integrated transportation and land use and established a process for creating
streets that integrated transportation choices.
First, the city established new street typologies, categorized as: parkways,
boulevards, avenues, main streets and local streets. The street typologies
were created to support existing and proposed land uses, the street function
and the design character. Ultimately, the street typologies were used to
develop preferred design elements and recommended cross-sections.
Unique to Charlotte’s Design Guidelines, however, is the recommended
approach to applying them. The city developed the following six-step
27
chapter 3: designing complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
participatory process to arriving at alternative street design solutions (City of
Charlotte 2007):
•
Step 1: Define the land use and urban design context
•
Step 2: Define the transportation context
•
Step 3: Identify deficiencies
•
Step 4: Describe future objectives
•
Step 5: Recommend street typology and test initial cross-section
•
Step 6: Describe tradeoffs and select cross-section
Denver: Multimodal Street Type Designation
In 2002, Denver began implementing a new street classification system to
better understand and consider the multimodal uses of their streets and the
surrounding land uses. The City of Denver sought a new approach to street
classification: one that was sensitive to the needs of alternative modes of
transportation and that reflected the actual function of the street.
Blueprint Denver, the City’s integrated land use and transportation plan,
outlines the City’s new approach to street classification. First, the plan
outlines six functional categories: arterial, collector, local, landmark street,
one-way couplet and downtown access street. Supplementing the functional
classification are five new street typologies: residential streets, main streets,
mixed-use streets, commercial streets and industrial streets. The new
classification system allows Denver planners to better characterize streets,
such as “mixed-use arterial” or “residential collector” and develop crosssections that support the needs of the specific typologies and users (U.S.
Department of Transportation 2006); (City of Denver n.d.).
Santa Monica
Santa Monica came to a similar realization as Denver, deciding that they
needed a better approach to determining the success of the overall
transportation system and balancing the needs of each mode in street
improvement projects. The 2009 version of the City’s Draft Land Use and
28
Circulation Plan outlines this new approach, with a detailed set of street
typologies and guidelines that consider the land use context and identify
priorities for each transportation mode (City of Santa Monica 2010).
SANTA MONICA: SAMPLE OF STREET TYPOLOGIES
Street Type
Description
Boulevard
Emphasis on transit and walking
Commercial:
Downtown
Prioritize pedestrian movement above all others
Commercial:
Neighborhood
Prioritize pedestrian movement above all others
Avenue: Secondary
Remove parking along nonresidential frontages to improve pedestrian
quality and add bicycle lanes as needed; set design speed at 25 mph
to improve pedestrian and bicycle comfort
Avenue: Industrial
Prioritize truck movement
Neighborhood Street
Set design speed at below 25 mph so bicycles can share travel lane
with cars and pedestrians can safely walk across the street at any
location
Shared Street
Favor bicyclists and pedestrians over motor vehicles; set design speed
at or below 15 mph
Parkway
Prioritize landscape character and continuous bikeway and pedestrian
paths over vehicle capacity or vehicle delay.
Bikeway: Lane/Path/
Bicycle Boulevard
Design street as bicycle boulevard, with physical measures to reduce
motor vehicles and volumes so that cyclists can comfortably share
lanes with autos where right-of-way is not available for bicycle lanes.
Seattle
In recognizing that the functional street classifications by themselves
were not an adequate local planning and design tool, the City of Seattle
established street types as a way to provide a more specific definition of the
design elements that support the street’s function and its adjacent land uses.
Seattle’s street types are intended to provide design guidance rather than
additional classification of the streets. Seattle’s Right-of-Way Improvement
Manual provides guidance on the street design features and characteristics
relevant to each typology. A typical cross-section is included to further
illustrate the desired design of each street type. The table below further
illustrates street types commonly used by the City of Seattle (n.d.).
chapter 3: designing complete streets
SEATTLE: STREET TYPOLOGIES
Street Type
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Regional
Connector
Commercial
Connector
Local Connector
Main Street
Mixed-use
Street
Street
Classification
SEATTLE: STREET TYPOLOGIES
Adjacent
Land Use
Priority Design Features
Industrial,
Commercial,
Residential
• Sidewalks buffered from moving traffic
by additional sidewalk width or planting
strip
• Pedestrian facilities including weather
protection and lighting at transit zones
and in locations where adjacent land uses
support pedestrian activity
• Bicycle access accommodated if parallel
route is not feasible
Minor Arterial
Commercial,
Residential
• Wide sidewalks and planting strip buffer
walking area from moving traffic
• Street trees and landscaping
• Bus shelters at transit zones
• Signed and/or striped bicycle lanes on
designated bicycle routes
Collector
Arterial
Residential,
Institutional
(community
service)
• Wide sidewalks with planting strips
• Signed and/or striped bicycle lanes on all
designated bicycle routes
• Street trees and landscaping
• Traffic calming may be appropriate
• Bus shelters at transit stops
Principal
Arterial
Arterial—all
Arterial—all
29
N'borhood
commercial
with a
pedestrian
designation
• Wide sidewalks and planting strip
• Curb bulbs in locations where there is
on-street parking
• Street trees and landscaping
• Pedestrian scaled lighting
• Street furniture
• Awnings and weather protection
• Signed and/or striped bicycle lanes on
designated bicycle routes
• Bike parking in business districts
• Short-term, on-street parking
N'borhood
commercial
• Wide sidewalks and planting strips
• Curb bulbs in locations where there is
on-street parking
• Street trees and landscaping
• Pedestrian scaled lighting
• Awnings and weather protection
• Signed and/or striped bicycle lanes on
designated bicycle routes
• Bike parking in business districts
Street Type
Street
Classification
Adjacent
Land Use
Priority Design Features
Industrial Access
Street
Arterial – all,
non-arterials
in commercial
areas
Industrial,
Maritime
• Truck route signage
• Load zones to support delivery activities
• Low landscaping or high branching trees
in planting strips
Residential
• Wide sidewalks and planting strip
• Tight curb radii (and curb bulbs when
there is on-street parking)
• Curb bulbs in locations where there is
on-street parking
• Street trees and landscaping
• Driveways not encouraged in order to
create a continuous sidewalk
• Pedestrian scaled lighting
• Street furniture
• Awnings and weather protection
• Bike route shared with motor vehicles
Residential
• Walkways and planting strip
• Street trees and landscaping
• Driveways not encouraged in order to
create a continuous sidewalk
• Natural drainage encouraged
• Pedestrian scaled lighting
• Street furniture
• Awnings and weather protection
• Bike route shared with motor vehicles
Green Street
Neighborhood
Green Street
Non-arterial
in Downtown
Seattle
Non-arterial
outside of
Downtown
Seattle
Source: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/rowmanual/manual/
Suggested Complete Street Typologies
Adopting a Complete Streets ordinance is particularly valuable in shifting
current practices and paradigms around street design. However to ensure
that the objectives of a Complete Streets ordinance do not contradict the
city’s approach to road design, it is important to develop a system of street
typologies and design standards that align with the goals of Complete
Streets. A new system of street typologies can also provide a framework for
determining the needs of other modes of transportation while reflecting land
use patterns. Jurisdictions that have gone through this process have found it
to be invaluable from a public outreach and consensus building standpoint,
but also with respect to the design outcomes. Local jurisdictions are best
chapter 3: designing complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
suited to define and implement new street
design standards and typologies, given their
comprehensive knowledge of the land use and
transportation patterns and needs within the area
(Strate et al 2007).
As recommended in Dan Burden’s Street Design
Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods (1999),
there are seven street types that can be used to
support the design of healthy streets. It should
be noted however that these typologies are
intended for the development of new streets
rather than retrofit projects.
It should also be noted that the following
guidelines should be used as examples for
different street typology classifications and
design considerations. The context of individual
communities should always be considering
when developing street typologies and design
standards, and the emphasis should always be on
slower vehicle movements and shorter crossing
distances. **Maximum standards should be
viewed as the absolute threshold, not the desired
standard.
30
STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS
Street Type
Purpose
Street Features
Buildings and Land Use
Lane
Provides access to
single-family homes
Width: 16-18’, informal parking
Planting strip: 6’
Sidewalks: 5’, both sides
Average speed: 15 mph
38’ ROW
Residential – primarily single family
Buildings brought close to the
sidewalk
Consistent building line
recommended
Street
Provides access to
housing
Width: 26’, informal parking
Planting strip: 6’
Sidewalks: 5’, both sides
Average speed: 20 mph
48’ ROW
Residential – many types
Residences brought close to the
sidewalk
Consistent building line
recommended
Avenue w/
Parking
Connects town centers
and neighborhoods
Width: 24’ both sides of median w/
on-street parking
Median width: 12-16’
Travel lanes: 11’
Maximum 2 travel lanes
Bike lanes & planting strips
Sidewalks: 5-8’ on each side
Average speed 25-30 mph
Mixed residential and commercial
Buildings brought close to the
sidewalk
Consistent building line
recommended
Main Street
without Median
Provides access
to, and a space
for, neighborhood
commercial and mixeduse buildings
Travel lanes: 11” w/striped parking
Commercial and mixed-use
Buildings next to sidewalk
Consistent building line
recommended
Pedestrian awnings, arcades,
sidewalk dining and retail
recommended
Boulevard
Provides multi-lane
access to commercial
and mixed-use
buildings and carriers
regional traffic
Lanes 11’ w/ striped parking and bike
lanes
Maximum 6 travel lanes
Planting wells: 6-11’
Sidewalks 5’ minimum each side
Average speed 30-35 mph
Commercial and mixed-use
Buildings next to sidewalk
Consistent building line
recommended
Sidewalks and bike lanes on both
sides
Pedestrian awnings and arcades
recommended
Parkway
Bring people into town,
or pass traffic through
natural areas. Parkways
are not designed for
development. When
the parkway enters
town, it becomes a
boulevard.
Travel lanes 11-12’
Median width 12-20’
Average speed 45-55 mph
Multi-use trails 8-12’
Planting strips 7-20’
Bike lane not adjacent to travel lane
6’ minimum paved shoulder on highspeed parkway (>50mph)
No buildings, preserve nature
Parkways are designed to be on the
edge of towns, nature preserves or
agricultural areas
Multi-use trails may be on either or
both sides.
Maximum 6 travel lanes **
Planting wells 6’/landscaped median
optional
Sidewalks: minimum 8’ on each side
Average speed 20-25 mph
Bulbouts at intersections and midblock crossings
Bike lanes optional but preferred
Source: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_b1.pdf
chapter 3: designing complete streets
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Another basic approach to developing street typologies used by some cities
is to categorize streets according to the following hierarchy (Sacramento
Transportation and Air Quality 2005):
•
Commercial Streets – Typically dominated by automobiles, however,
all modes should be accommodated on these streets. Detached
sidewalks, marked crosswalks and bicycle lanes should be provided.
•
Mixed-Use Streets – Provide wide sidewalks and bicycle facilities
while facilitating slower motor vehicle speeds. Parking should be
considered on these streets.
•
Main Streets – Designed to prioritize the movement of pedestrians
and bicyclists while supporting the businesses along the street.
•
Residential Streets – Provide a safe, traffic controlled environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists to feel comfortable crossing and traveling
along the street.
•
Industrial Streets – Designed to support freight traffic, which may
mean providing wider lanes while still accommodating other modes
of transportation.
Once street typologies have been decided upon, design guidelines can
be applied to each typology (further discussed in Chapter 4). Design
considerations may include:
•
Design goal, priority elements
•
Lane widths
•
Number of travel lanes
•
On-street parking
•
Transit use and features
•
Sidewalk (width)
•
Buffered landscape (width)
31
•
Maximum posted speed and design speed
•
Bicycle facility (type and width)
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
Engineering Considerations
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
There are specific design considerations, called design controls that help
guide the selection of criteria for the design of a thoroughfare. While some
design controls are fixed, such as terrain and climate, most controls are
selected and defined within the street design process. Design controls,
as defined by the American Association of State Highway Transportation
Organizations (AASHTO) include speed, capacity, level of service, design
vehicle and functional classification.
Design controls should be factored into the design of a Complete Street,
however often in a different context than in the conventional street design
process. The following section provides a brief discussion of selected street
design parameters and how they should be applied in Complete Streets
planning and design.
Functional Classification
The functional classification can be used to develop street types (Chapter 3)
and characterize the users and design priorities of the street. This information
is helpful in determining how best to allocate the right-of-way to serve the
multimodal uses.
Speed
Speed is one of the most influential design controls, particularly when
itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s applied to Complete Streets planning.
Vehicle speeds present the greatest threat
to bicyclists and pedestrians. A pedestrian
struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per
hour has a 95 percent chance of survival. At
40 miles per hour, the chance of a pedestrian
surviving is only 15 percent (Federal Highway
Administration 2002).
The target speed of a street is the speed at
which vehicles should operate, or the posted
speed limit. The design speed is typically
higher than the target speed and is controlled by the geometric features of
the roadway. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends that the
design speed be only five miles per hour over the target speed to support
Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions.
Streets should be designed with target speeds that are appropriate for their
current and future context and should be based on roadway classification
and street type as well as land use context and user demand. A lower
target speed can be achieved through various measures, including narrow
travel lanes, appropriate signal timing and physical measures such as curb
extensions that narrow the travel way.
Capacity
Conventional street design is largely based on future traffic projections
and achieving the highest level of service possible to serve automobile
traffic. While traffic projections should be considered in Complete Street
design, there are several other factors that should be taken into account
and prioritized when designing Complete Streets. In this context, a lower
automobile level of service (LOS) may be acceptable if it allows for bicycle
lanes and wide sidewalks along a downtown main street. Those concerned
with conformity and the state Growth Management Act (GMA) should be
aware that there is substantial flexibility within the law, which allows cities
to designate their own LOS. Moreover, there are now multimodal LOS
guidelines, including the Institute of Traffic Engineer's forthcoming urban
arterial level of service standards, which may present a more complete
picture of right-of-way performance than simple "vehicle to capacity" ratios.
Design and Control Vehicle
A design vehicle is the type of vehicle that should be expected to
regularly use the roadway. Roadways should be designed according to the
predominant users of the roadwayâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as opposed to the largest potential
user. For example, residential streets should not be designed to support the
infrequent movement of freight traffic, but rather non-motorized users and
slow vehicle traffic. Streets must meet the minimum standards for emergency
vehicle access as well (Gresham Smith and Partners 2009); (Institute of
Transportation Engineers n.d.).
32
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
Design Considerations
Travel Lane Widths
There are several overarching street design elements inherent to creating
Complete Streets. These considerations, such as block length and street
width, contribute to the overall safety and desirability of bicycling and
walking. The following section presents an overview of these considerations
as well as guidelines where appropriate.
A common misconception is that wider motor vehicle lane widths provide
more safety and/or automobile capacity. Research has shown that reducing
travel lane widths from 12 feet to 11 or even 10 feet has little negative
impact on motor vehicle traffic—safety, movement and flow, and in fact there
is a demonstrable postive impact on safety with narrower lanes (Noland
2003).
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Street Widths
When considering street widths, there are three factors to be considered: 1)
lane width; 2) total number of lanes and 3) total street width. Streets are often
designed to wider standards than necessary, which negatively influences the
safety of users by facilitating faster vehicle speeds and increasing crossing
distances at intersections. Streets over 60 feet wide can present barriers for
pedestrians and facilitate higher vehicle speeds while discouraging crossings
for transit connections (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2010).
Research has shown that narower streets calm traffic and improve safety and
crash risk for all users. One study found the most significant relationship
between injury crashes and street design to be width and curvature (Swift
2003). According to this study, the safest residential street width (curb to
curb) was 24 feet. Wider streets not only result in a higher average 85th
percentile speed, but also present longer crossing distances for pedestrians
(Daisa and Peers 1997); (Ridgway 1997). In addition to slowing traffic and
creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, narrower streets reduces the
environmental impacts associated with pavement (urban heat island effect,
runoff).
Example Residential Street Width Standards (Kreck 1998)
City
Width
Portland, Or
18’-24’ depending on parking
Madison, Wi
27-28’, parking on both sides
Novato, Ca
20-28’ with parking on both sides
AASHTO has identified benefits to narrower travel lanes (10 to11 feet)
on lower-speed streets, such as reduced pedestrian crossing distances.
In addition, by reducing travel lanes (for instance from 12 feet to 10 feet),
enough space can be provided to add bicycle lanes and/or buffers between
sidewalks and the travel-way. Reducing lane widths is also a good traffic
calming strategy on roads where excessive 85th percentile speeds are an
issue.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends selecting lane
widths based on the target speed, design vehicle, available right-of-way and
the width of adjacent bicycle and parking lanes. The ITE suggests a range
of lane widths from 10 to 12 feet on arterials and 10 to 11 feet on collectors.
On arterials with target speeds below 30 mph, 10 to 11 feet widths are
appropriate. On collectors with a target speed below 30 mph, a 10-foot lane
width may be appropriate (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2010).
Block Length
A longer average block length not only increases the 85th percentile speed
of streets, but also negatively affects the pedestrian and bicycle experience.
Longer blocks increase the likelihood that a pedestrian will cross between
intersections to access destinations, whereas shorter blocks provide
increased connectivity and route choices for pedestrians and bicyclists. In
a study out of San Antonio, Texas, streets with blocks exceeding 600 feet
in length had 85th percentile speeds that exceeded the legal speed limit
(Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality 2005).
ITE (2010) recommends spacing pedestrian facilities so block lengths in less
dense areas (suburban or general urban) do not exceed 600 feet (preferably
33
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
200 to 400 feet) and in the densest urban areas (urban centers and urban
cores) block lengths do not exceed 400 feet (preferably 200 to 300 feet) to
support higher densities and pedestrian activity.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Connectivity
A connected street network is important for encouraging bicycle and
pedestrian travel. High connectivity provides route options for bicyclists and
pedestrians while also dispersing traffic within the network. In the United
States however, cities have incorporated cul-de-sacs within the neigborhoods
as a way to impede through-traffic. This type of street design has resulted in
reduced connectivity and increased traffic on arterials, ultimately precluding
bicycling and walking from being convenient, direct and safe modes of
transportation. By maintaining a connected street grid within neighborhoods
and throughout communities, traffic is dispersed, people have options and
direct connections, and bicyclists and pedestrians are not forced to use highspeed and volume arterials (Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality 2005).
Connectivity is also affected by block lengths. In communities with vehicle
dominated contexts, block lengths tend to be longer, which makes walking
distances longer and reduces the likelihood that people will walk to
destinations (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2010).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Amenities
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are a fundamental part of Complete Streets. Bicycle facilities
should be designed to support a range of usersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from novice bicyclists to
experienced. When designing Complete Streets to support bicycle use, it is
important to consider the context and characteristics of the street. Specific
considerations should include the type of intended user, surrounding density
and land use, available right-of-way, pavement width, traffic volume and
speed. While a bike lane may be the desired facility in an urban environment,
a paved shoulder may be sufficient along a low-density rural road. There are
several guidelines that can be used to determine what the appropriate facility
type should be in different situations (Resources Here). Chapter 5 presents a
toolbox of innovative and traditional bicycle facility treatments.
34
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are a basic provision for pedestrian-friendly streets. Suburban
streets often provide a bare minimum of four- to five-foot sidewalks, with little
or no buffer from traffic and often lack attention to ADA standards. Complete
Streets should consider not only the provision of sidewalks, but the quality
of the sidewalk and pedestrian realm. As with bicycle facilities, the width
and placement of the sidewalk should depend on the context of the street.
For example, sidewalks along rural roads should be well separated from
the travelway. If a paved shoulder is used instead, a five-foot wide shoulder
is acceptable for pedestrians along low-volume rural highways. A 10-foot
shoulder is preferred along higher-speed highways.
Minimum Sidewalk Width Guidelines (Unobstructed)
Local or collector streets
5 feet
Arterial or major streets
6-8 feet
Central Business District areas
8-12 feet
Along parks, schools and other major pedestrian
generators
8-10 feet
Source: (PEDSAFE, USDOT, FHA n.d.)
Sidewalk Buffers
Buffers between pedestrians and motor vehicles are important for safety and
added comfort and security. Landscaped buffers serve additional purposes
as well, such as providing space for poles, signs and trees, and greening the
right-of-way. Desirable width for landscaped buffer, or a planting strip, is six
feet (PEDSAFE, USDOT, FHA n.d.)
Minimum Sidewalk Buffer Guidelines
Local or collector streets
2-4 feet
Arterial or major streets
4- 6 feet
Source: (PEDSAFE, USDOT, FHA n.d.)
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
On-Street Parking
In many suburban communities, parking is provided in surface lots between
buildings and streets. This type of land use is typical of an auto-oriented area,
with little support for pedestrians. On-street parking, however, can provide a
variety of benefits, in the appropriate context. On-street parking can provide
a buffer between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic, while calming traffic
and supporting adjacent businesses. When deciding whether or not to
include on-street parking in a design, the tradeoffs should be considered,
such as potential conflicts with bicycle facilities and reduced traffic capacity
on the street. The preferred width of parallel on-street parking is seven feet
on residential thoroughfares and eight feet on commercial thoroughfares.
Street S tandards and Design Guidelines
Street typologies, as discussed in Chapter 3, should provide a general
basis for determining the potential and desired uses and functions of each
street. In addition, street typologies provide a framework for developing
new design standards that fit the needs and the character of each street
type and ultimately support Complete Streets planning. This can help to
focus Complete Streets planning and better understand the types of design
treatments that should be used in different contexts.
As discussed in Chapter 3, to develop a framework for Complete Streets
typologies, it is important to consider and define the land use context
(existing and future); streets should be designed to support the current or
planned adjacent development. While all streets should accommodate all
users (particularly pedestrians), some streets should prioritize the movement
of certain users. For instance, a neighborhood commercial street should be
designed to facilitate slower moving traffic and an active pedestrian realm,
whereas a local residential street should be designed to encourage safe and
desirable use by pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities while
slowing and discouraging cut-through automobile traffic.
As cities develop new street standards and design manuals, they are placing
greater emphasis and priority on the types of design features that contribute
to livable communities. Common goals of many of the new street design
manuals include (Hawkes and Sheridan 2009):
•
Livability and placemaking
•
Access and mobility
•
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety
•
Flexibility in design
•
Context
•
Balance
•
Healthy environment
•
Visual excellence
The following case studies provide a snapshot of the types of new street
design standards being adopted by cities and states to support Complete
Streets principles:
City of Eugene: Multimodal Street Design
In 1996, the City of Eugene adopted a local street plan that called for
narrower streets, shorter blocks, increased street connectivity, planting strips
and detached sidewalks in new subdivisions. The new street standards
not only reduced maximum block length from 1200 to 600 feet, but also
provided local street width classifications based on expected traffic volume.
The city also identified appropriate traffic calming measures for major streets,
discouraged cul-de-sacs and required street connectivity (City of Eugene
Planning Division n.d.).
Sacramento
In 1998, the City of Sacramento updated its street design standards in
response to community concerns around the existing standards and their
35
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
failure to support livable neighborhoods. Community groups
were concerned that the high traffic volumes and speeds in
neighborhoods were negatively impacting quality of life. The city
responded by launching an aggressive traffic-calming program;
however, it became apparent that the program was only effective
with respect to the existing street system. The city decided to
develop new street standards to address these deficiencies and
to improve the design of new streets. The design standards
included (Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality 2005):
36
SACRAMENTO: PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY STREET STANDARDS
Street Type
Range of
Average
Daily
Traffic
Sidewalk
(feet)
Planter
Parking
Lane
(feet)
Bike
Lane
(feet)
Travel
Lanes
(feet)
Median
(feet)
Total
ROW
(feet)
Local
Residential
0-4000
5
6.5
7
0
8
NA
53
Local
Commercial
0-14,000
5
6.5
7
0
11
NA
59
Local
Industrial
0-14,000
5
6.5
8
0
12
NA
63
•
Reduced minimum width of local residential streets, from
36 feet to 30 feet
Collector
Minor – no
parking
4,0007,000
5
6.5
0
6
11
NA
57
•
Flexibility in the design of new streets, for instance,
a developer could choose to increase the width of a
sidewalk if desired
Collector
Minor – with
parking
4,0007,000
5
6.5
7
6
11
NA
71
Collector
Major – no
parking
7,00014,000
5
6.5
0
6
11
12
69
Collector
Major – with
parking
7,00014,000
5
6.5
7
6
11
12
83
4-lane
Arterial – no
parking
14,000-
6
8.5
0
6
11/12
12
99
4-lane
Arterial –
with parking
14,000-
6
8.5
7
6
11/12
12
113
6-lane
Arterial
27,00048,000
6
8.5
0
6
11/11/12
12
121
•
Required landscaped medians (on collectors exceeding a
certain traffic volume)
•
Seven-foot parking lanes (depending on adjacent land
use)
•
Bicycle lanes required on arterial streets
•
Planter strips required on all streets
•
Traffic calming devices encouraged to enhance the
pedestrian environment
More recently, the Sacramento City Council adopted Pedestrian
Friendly Street Standards that are designed to encourage
alternative modes of transportation and work towards a balance
of street users. Some of the changes included separated
sidewalks on all streets and adding bike lanes to all collector
streets.
27,000
27,000
Source: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/dot_media/engineer_media/pdf/ApprovedOrd.pdf
Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County
chapter 4: design considerations and guidelines
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
City of Tacoma
In 2009, the Tacoma City Council adopted Complete Streets Design
Guidelines to provide specific guidance for adopting Complete Street
policies and practices within the City. The city developed both “Mixed-Use
Center Guidelines” as well as “Residential Guidelines”. The city began by
developing Complete Street typologies, based on predominate right-ofway conditions. The adopted “Mixed-Use Center Typologies” included:
main street, avenue, transit priority and urban residential. These typologies
provided the framework for developing Complete Streets design guidelines.
For example, Tacoma’s main street typology guidelines include the following
priority design elements:
•
Narrow roadway: recommended two 11- or 12-foot lanes
•
Bicycle facilities: five- to six-foot bicycle lanes where there is
adequate right-of-way
•
On-street parking: seven-foot preferred to minimize street width
•
Curb extensions at intersections and mid-block
•
Sidewalk: 10- to 12-foot recommended
•
Amenity Zone: six- to eight-foot recommended (trees, furnishings,
lighting, transit amenities)
•
Driveways restricted
•
Maximum posted speed and design speed = 25 mph
37
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
38
Overview
Road Diets
Designing Complete Streets means that planned streets contribute to a safe,
convenient and comfortable travel experience for all users. As outlined in
Chapter 3, prior to selecting a set of treatments for a street, it is important
to first understand who the different (existing and potential) user groups
are. Street typologies and supporting design standards can help to better
understand the intended users of specific streets, and the type of design that
is warranted. Other data that should be considered when choosing the most
appropriate design treatments for a Complete Streets project include (City of
New Haven 2010):
A road diet is an effective treatment with positive implications for all users
of the roadway. Conventional transportation planning and street design
may result in roadways and lanes that are wider than necessary, which have
sufficient right-of-way to be re-programmed for different uses, ultimately
creating a more balanced public space. Road diets can provide space for the
following:
•
Speed: high speeds are incompatible with pedestrian and bicycle
environments
•
Existing non-motorized volumes
•
Major trip generators, such as school, libraries, transit centers, mixeduse centers, hospitals etc.
•
Crash data: higher numbers of injury or fatality crashes indicate the
need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements and traffic calming
measures
•
Street classification and type
•
Other data such as transit use, school walking routes, etc.
Other factors, such as right-of-way constraints, community desires, existing
and planned land uses, and available budget, will also need to be considered
when choosing a design for the street. Once a conceptual understanding of
the needs and users of a street, and the relevant constraints, there are several
design strategies that can be utilized to create Complete Streets. In retrofit
projects, one particularly effective strategy for allocating space for the types
of treatments identified in the toolbox is through the rechannelization of a
roadway (also called a road diet).
•
Bicycle lanes
•
Sidewalks
•
Sidewalk buffers
•
Street trees
•
On-street parking
•
Medians and/or turn lanes
Road diets are typically approached by either reducing the number of travel
lanes on a roadway or by reducing the width of the individual travel lanes.
Road diets can be a cost effective solution to creating Complete Streets and
improving traffic safety for all users.
Where to Apply Road Diets
•
Four-lane to three-lane conversion: should be considered on all fourlane roadways with an average daily travel (ADT) lower than 24,000
•
Travel lane width reduction: considered when traffic volumes warrant
preservation of four travel-lanes
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
Complete Streets Treatment Toolbox
The following “toolbox” includes examples of bicycle, pedestrian and transitfriendly designs. However, as mentioned throughout this guide, the types
of designs chosen for a specific street or project should reflect a variety of
factors, including adjacent land use, traffic volumes and speeds, intended
users and right-of-way constraints. The toolbox is presented to illustrate the
myriad of options for cities to consider when designing Complete Streets.
39
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Multi-use Trail
A multi-use trail is a separated non-motorized facility,
often used for recreation or commuting purposes by
cyclists and pedestrians.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Complete Streets for Bicycles
Source: http://www.americantrails.
org/photoGalleries/cool/10-Rail-trailbridge-retrofit.html
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Cycle Track
A cycle track is an exclusive bicycle facility adjacent
to—but separated from—the roadway by a physical
barrier. It combines the user experience of a
separated path with the on-street infrastructure of
a bike lane. Cycle tracks are commonly used on
arterial roadways with higher motor vehicle speeds
and volumes and on roads with fewer cross-streets
and longer blocks (City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2010, 8).
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle lanes are marked spaces along length of a
roadway for use exclusively by bicyclists. Bike lanes
create a separation between cyclists and motor
vehicles. Bike lanes are commonly used on roadways
with more than 3,000 vehicle trips per day or any
street where bike lanes could help reduce vehicle
lane widths, where appropriate (City of Portland
Bureau of Transportation 2010, 1).
Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/
transactions/ta1106/grand.htm
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
40
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Buffered Bicycle Lane
Colored Bicycle Lane
A buffered bicycle lane is a bike lane with a marked
(often hatched) buffer to increase the separation
between bicycles and motor vehicles. Buffered bike
lanes are common on roads with high motor vehicle
traffic speeds and volumes, on roads with a high
volume of truck/oversized vehicle traffic and on bike
lanes adjacent to on-street parking (City of Portland
Bureau of Transportation 2010, 3).
Colored bike lanes are commonly used on heavy
auto traffic streets with bike lanes; at dangerous
intersections or where cyclists and motorists must
weave with one another; and in conflict areas with a
record of crashes. Color is applied to the bike lanes
to distinguish the bike lane, alert roadway users at
high-conflict areas and to clearly assign right-ofway to cyclists. Motorists are expected to yield to
cyclists in these areas (City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2010, 6).
Source: http://thecityfix.com/top-21time-saving-cities/
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
Contraflow Bicycle Lane
Advisory Bicycle Lane
Contraflow bicycle lanes are bike lanes placed on
a one-way street, with a bicycle travel flowing in
the opposite direction as car travel. Contraflow
bike lanes are commonly used on one-way auto
traffic streets and narrow streets where on-street
parking and bicycle accessibility are given priority
over traffic accessibility (City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2010, 4).
Advisory bicycle lanes are dotted white lines on
both sides of a narrow roadway to delineate bicycle
areas. They are used when the automobile zone
is not wide enough for two cars to pass in both
directions or in areas where bicycles and cars must
cross paths. Motorists may enter the bicycle zone
when no bicycles are present. Advisory bike lanes
are commonly used on streets with low traffic
volumes and speeds (City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2010, 7).
Source: http://dcist.com/2010/08/
new_contraflow_bike_lanes_installed.
php
Source: http://ibikenopa.blogspot.
com/2010/07/mta-tweaks-lanestriping-to-direct.html
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
41
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Bicycle Boulevard
Paved Shoulder
A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway where the
bicycle, or any other human-powered vehicle, is the
primary design vehicle. Bicycle boulevards should be
considered as a potential improvement on residential
streets or neighborhood streets where high-volume,
high-speed motor vehicle traffic is undesirable
(City of New Haven 2010, 53). Bike boulevards are
commonly used on low traffic residential streets
parallel to a proximal arterial.
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
A paved shoulder refers to the part of the roadway
that is adjacent to and at grade with the vehicle
travel lane. Paved shoulders for bicycle use are
not typically provided on roadways with curb and
gutter, but rather on roadways where there is a need
to more safely accommodate bicycles. On rural
roadways where bicycle travel is common, such as
roads in coastal resort areas, wide paved shoulders
are highly desirable (North Carolina Department of
Transportation n.d.).
Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)
Bicycle Signals
Shared roadway pavement markings, or “sharrows”,
are markings used to indicate a shared lane
environment for bicycles and automobiles. Sharrows
increase the visibility of the roadway as a valid
place for bicycle traffic and guide proper roadway
positioning of bicyclists on streets where a separated
facility is desired but not feasible (City of Portland
Bureau of Transportation 2010, 37).
Bicycle signals are traffic signals specifically for
bicyclists. These are usually placed at signalized
intersections where bicyclists travel at a high speeds,
locations where intersection operation is not intuitive
for cyclists crossing through the automobile traffic
signal and where there are a high volume of bicycle
trips (City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 2010,
23).
Source: http://www.bikearlington.com/
pages/biking-in-arlington/sharing-theroad/
Source: http://news.guelphmercury.
com/Life/article/531266
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
42
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
BICYCLE TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Bicycle Box
Bicycle Signage (wayfinding)
Bicycle boxes (a form of “advanced stop line”) are a
traffic control device at signalized intersections that
require motorists to stop a short distance before
the crosswalk and allow bicyclists to stop in the
area between the cars and the crosswalk. Bicycle
boxes give bicyclists priority by allowing them to
go to the head of the line of queuing vehicles. Bike
boxes are used at intersections where there is a
high number of queuing bicyclists, high automobile
and bicycle volumes, frequent turning conflicts or
a high percentage of turning movements by both
bicyclists and motorists (City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2010, 28).
Bicycle wayfinding signage is used to direct
cyclists to certain areas of the community, common
attractions and through parts of town that might be
difficult to navigate on a bicycle. A typical bicycle
wayfinding sign may include three elements: 1) a
universal symbol for bicycle; 2) the name of the
attraction or part of town it is guiding the cyclist to
and 3) the distance from the sign to the destination.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/
photos/71527680@N00/2533667311
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
Bicycle Parking
Roundabouts
Bicycle parking is typically divided into four types of
categories: 1) short-term public parking; 2) long-term
public parking; 3) short-term private parking and 4)
long-term private parking (City of New Haven 2010,
53). Bicycle racks come in all shapes and sizes, other
than the fact that they should support the bicycle by
its frame rather than by its wheels—the benefits of
which are debatable. In any case, Complete Streets
should provide enough secure public bike parking to
meet demand in that area.
A bicycle roundabout is the use of a circular
intersection conforming to modern roundabout
standards to organize the interaction of bicycles (and
automobiles) where bicycle boulevards or off street
pathways intersect. They are commonly used where
two bike boulevards or shared use pathways cross
(City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 2010, 35).
Source: http://frozenbrody.blogspot.
com/2010/08/italy-and-adriaticslovenia-piran.html
Source: Max Hepp-Buchanan,
Cascade Bicycle Club
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
Complete Streets for Pedestrians
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Lighting
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Curb Extensions
Studies have shown that the presence of
lighting not only reduces the risk of traffic
crashes, but also their severity. Complete
street lighting designs should (Gresham
Smith and Partners 2009, 31):
Curb extensions reduce pedestrian cross
times and exposure to motor vehicles,
increase visibility, encourage appropriate
motor vehicle operating speeds and create
public space and enable placement of street
furniture—essential elements for an active
street life (Gresham Smith and Partners 2009,
28).
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
43
Source: http://www.flickr.com/
photos/20816835@N00/180848197
•
Ensure pedestrian walkways and
crossways are sufficiently lit
•
Consider adding pedestrian-level
lighting in areas of higher pedestrian
volumes, downtown and at key
intersections
•
Install lighting on both sides of streets
in commercial districts
•
Use uniform lighting levels
Source: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/
display/web/2009/07/15/street_light_fee/
Sidewalk Widening
Street Trees
Wider sidewalks provide separation between
pedestrians and adjacent travel lanes,
create space for people to congregate
and allow the placement of fixed objects
— street trees, lighting, street furniture,
etc. (Gresham Smith and Partners 2009,
17). ADA standards specify a minimum of
five feet clear path width to accommodate
two wheelchairs passing each other.
Generally, sidewalks should be as wide
as possible to accommodate foot traffic,
given available street width. No existing
sidewalks should be reduced in the course
of street widening projects. Opportunities
for widening sidewalks and narrowing streets
should be considered whenever roads are
reconstructed (City of New Haven 2010, 48).
Street trees provide a buffer between the
sidewalk and adjacent motor vehicle travel
lanes; add a frame of reference to the
roadway, encouraging the driver to proceed
at appropriate speeds; as well as provide
shade and gathering places (Gresham Smith
and Partners 2009, 28).
Source: http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/
parks/forestry_div/ordinance.html
Source: http://www.planbike.com/2010/05/
cycling-las-vegas-strip.html
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
44
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
ADA Compliant Curb Ramps
Crosswalks
Access for all users is an important part of
any Complete Street. Per ADA guidelines,
wheelchair ramps with detectable warning
strips should be installed wherever a
sidewalk crosses a curb, and existing ramps
should be upgraded to meet current ADA
guidelines (City of New Haven 2010, 48).
One ramp should be installed per crossingleg and it should be installed in such a
location as to facilitate the shortest possible
crossing distance. Finally, there must be a
level landing at the top of each ramp.
Crosswalks should generally be installed
at controlled intersections and should be
placed to minimize crossing distances
and conflicts between pedestrians and
vehicles. Midblock crosswalks on arterials
and collector roads should be considered
as needed, subject to traffic studies and
engineering judgment. High visibility
crosswalks (also known as International Style)
are preferred over designs consisting of two
parallel lines as volumes warrant (City of New
Haven 2010, 48).
Source: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.
aspx?page=391
Street Furniture
Sidewalk Surface Treatments
Functional and aesthetically pleasing street
furniture contributes to a pleasant walking
environment and supports the use of the
street as a public space. Examples of street
furniture include benches, lighting, bike racks
and shelters, bus stop shelters, newsstands,
informational signs and kiosks and waste
receptacles. Proper design and application
is essential to maintain functionality and
accessibility of the sidewalk (City of New
Haven 2010, 48).
Sidewalks are typically surfaced in standard
concrete, but alternative materials such
as brick or stone pavers or even tinted
concrete can be used for aesthetic
enhancements that contribute to a pleasant
walking environment, as well as to improve
stormwater control through permeability.
Proper maintenance is essential, as some
materials, particularly brick pavers, can lift or
settle over time and create tripping hazards
or obstacles for wheelchairs (City of New
Haven 2010, 49).
Source: http://blog.oregonlive.com/
oldtown/2009/06/retrograde.html
Source: http://www.portlandmercury.com/
images/
logimages/2010/09/15/1284581293-foster_
crosswalk.jpg
Source: http://calmstreetsboston.blogspot.
com/2010/04/vassar-street-cycle-trackcambridge-ma.html
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
45
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Roadway Surface Treatments
Speed Humps
Roadways are typically paved in asphalt
or concrete. However, other surface
treatments such as pavers or stamped/
imprinted concrete or asphalt may be used
in certain locations to enhance aesthetic
character, improve stormwater control
through permeability and/or delineate
space for various street users. Maintenance
is an important consideration for any
unconventional surface treatment (City of
New Haven 2010, 49).
A speed hump is a raised area in the roadway
pavement surface that can help reduce
speeds. Speed humps are most effective
when used in combination with other traffic
calming/speed reducing measures and they
are not suitable for all locations. Also, they
require strong community support to offset
negative impacts such as noise (City of New
Source: http://www.ci.burlington.nc.us/index.
Haven 2010, 49).
aspx
Source: http://www.renewcrete.sg/
sconcretegal.html
Pavement Markings
Refuge Islands
A variety of pavement markings can be
employed to improve street safety and
functionality for all road users. Some
examples include directional arrows, school
zone warning signs and stop bars (City of
New Haven 2010, 49).
Islands enhance pedestrian safety and
accessibility on streets with two-way traffic
by reducing crossing distances and providing
refuge for pedestrians to cross one direction
of traffic at a time. They can also serve as a
traffic calming tool by narrowing the roadway
at intersections, forcing vehicles to move
more slowly (City of New Haven 2010, 49).
Source: http://www.pavement-markings.com/
Source: http://www.internetigloo.com/
wildwood/calming.htm
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Chicanes
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
A chicane shifts traffic from one side of
the street to the other through the use of
staggered curb extensions or a serpentine
roadway alignment. Chicanes discourage
or make it impossible for drivers to drive in
a straight line, which can reduce vehicular
speeds. Chicanes may also be created
by staggering on-street parking. Impacts
on drainage, street sweeping and snow
clearance must be addressed in any chicane
design (City of New Haven 2010, 50).
Source: http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/
Chicane
Diverters
Diverters are physical barriers that redirect
or obstruct motor vehicle traffic with the
purpose of reducing vehicle speeds and cutthrough traffic on local streets. Diverters must
be designed with particular consideration
for drainage and emergency vehicle access,
and designs should not impede bicycle
circulation (City of New Haven 2010, 50).
Source: http://carfreeburque.blogspot.
com/2010/02/bicycle-boulevard-thoughts.html
46
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
Complete Streets for Transit
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Complete Streets and public transportation planning go hand in hand. Every
transit trip requires crossing the street at least once, and a Complete Streets
policy ensures those streets have safe crossings and accessible sidewalks to
get passengers, regardless of ability, from the bus or train to where they need
to go (Seskin 2009). Complete Streets policies should encourage people to
use public transit by making it a safe, convenient and attractive option.
Not only must people be able to easily access transit stops and stations,
but transit vehicles must also be able to operate efficiently and connect
users to destinations. Transit agencies aren’t always consulted when roads
are designed, so a Complete Streets policy can enable decision makers to
prioritize transit through roadway improvements and design solutions for
efficient bus movement. Bus-only lanes, curb bump-outs and bus priority
signalization are just some of the tools available to make transit trips faster
and more reliable—and usually in the toolboxes of communities with
Complete Streets policies (Seskin 2009). Streets that are well designed
for transit can also encourage people to use transit more frequently. For
example, in 2000 Los Angeles launched a rapid bus service which allowed
buses to extend green lights and shorten red ones if needed. As a result,
within the first year travel time decreased by 25 percent and ridership
increased by more than 30 percent (National Complete Streets Coalition
n.d.).
Suburban Bus Stops
There are five main elements to a safe suburban bus stop (Airport Corridor
Transportation Association n.d.). These are:
•
Clear, accessible pathways
•
Protected crossing
•
Visibility to and from the roadway
•
Closeness to activity generators (comfortable walking distance to and
from destinations)
•
Level terrain
47
There are also a number of design
features to consider when planning
suburban bus stops as part of a Complete
Streets policy:
•
Bus stops should typically
be located at the far side of
the intersection to minimize
intersection delay
•
Provide well-marked pedestrian Bus stop prototype design for a busy roadway
Image source: (Airport Corridor Transportation
crossings at all transit stops using Association n.d.)
striped crosswalk, pedestrian
refuges and curb extensions, as
appropriate
•
Use a priority signal where appropriate
•
Use appropriate standards for length of bus stops or bus stop on a
curb extension
•
Curb radii and curb extensions should be designed to avoid conflicts
with buses and ensure safe turns for buses and other larger vehicles
•
Reinforced bus-pads may preserve pavement quality on highervolume transit corridors, which can reduce the need for regular
maintenance
Transit Improvement Treatments
Other transit efficiency and prioritization improvements can be considered as
part of a Complete Streets policy, several of which were mentioned above.
The below matrix further illustrates and provides descriptions of different
types of treatments that can be administered as part of a Complete Streets
policy to improve the efficiency and speed of transit through a corridor.
chapter 5: treatment toolbox
TRANSIT TREATMENT TOOLBOX
TRANSIT TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Curb Bump-outs
Queue-jumper Lanes
A curb bump-out is an extension of the
sidewalk to the edge of the vehicle travel
lane. It is used at transit stops so that a bus
can board and de-board passengers without
having to exit and reenter traffic at every
stop. This adds more efficiency and speed to
stops where there are curb bump-outs.
A queue jump lane is a short stretch of bus
lane combined with traffic signal priority. The
idea is to enable buses to by-pass waiting
queues of traffic and to cut out in front by
getting an early green signal. A special
bus-only signal may be required. The queue
jump lane can be a right-turn only lane or
installed between right-turn and straightthrough lanes. A similar arrangement can be
used to permit a bus to cross traffic lanes to
make a left turn immediately after serving a
curb-side stop.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/
jmchuff/2353304873/
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
48
Bus-only Lanes
Bus lanes give priority to buses and cut
down on journey times where roads are
congested with other traffic. A bus-only lane
is not necessarily very long, as it may only
be used to bypass a single congestion point
such as an intersection. Some cities have
built large stretches of bus lanes amounting
to a separate local road system, often called
a busway system.
Source: http://urbanplacesandspaces.
blogspot.com/2010/03/bus-transitprioritization-and-creating.html
Bus Priority Signalization
A bus priority signal is a light at an
intersection that indicates transit vehicles
may pass though while cars often may not.
This is done to move transit through traffic
more quickly and/or to help buses cross
several lanes of traffic immediately after
passing through the intersection.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/
photos/32557421@N03/3491791644
Source: http://www.kehoe.org/owen/portfolio/
chapter 6: measurement and funding
Measurement
Early Inclusion of All Modes
Measurement is an important part of evaluating the performance of
Complete Streets projects. Measurement helps to determine how effective
projects are in meeting the goals of Complete Streets. The New Haven
Complete Streets Design Manual (2010) outlines the following reasons for
establishing and measurement and evaluation program:
Complete Streets policies ensure early multimodal scoping, which saves
money by avoiding costly project delays and expensive retrofits of existing
infrastructure. Without a Complete Streets policy, bicycle, pedestrian and
transit improvements to an intersection or corridor are often an afterthought
and are considered disruptions rather than necessary elements of roadway
and project design.
•
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
49
Provide baseline data to determine trends, effects, determine where
improvements are most needed and provide valuable information for
grant applications
•
Determine the overall level of travel demand by mode
•
Determine changes in travel speed brought about by changes to the
roadway
•
Determine the benefits of different types of transportation
improvements
•
Calculate performance measures for each mode including walking,
cycling, transit and driving
•
Assist in the data collection necessary for the continued application
for, and receiving of, state and federal grants
•
Assist in the allocation of funding for transportation projects
Funding Strategies
Paying for transportation projects is always a challenge and the costs
associated with Complete Streets implementation may be a concern to some
communities. However, in many case-study communities, concerns over
expenses for Complete Streets faded as the agency moved to implement
the policy (American Planning Association 2010, 66). Communities begin
to see the benefits discussed in earlier chapters of this guide: an improved
environment, public health gains, new economic opportunities and an
increased capacity of the transportation network. This section discusses
strategies communities can use to help ensure that their Complete Streets
improvements are fully funded from the beginning.
Just as including all modes in the initial scope of transportation projects
saves money, the failure to accommodate certain user groups—such as
elderly or disabled persons—can trigger expensive retrofit projects later.
Worse yet, neglecting to anticipate the needs of all users can also bring
about costly lawsuits (American Planning Association 2010, 68).
As the transportation paradigm shifts away from vehicle-oriented design to
Complete Streets, accommodating all users becomes less of an afterthought
and more of an accepted step in design, budgeting and construction
(American Planning Association 2010, 67).
Funding Complete Streets
By definition, Complete Streets should be implemented through use of
mainstream transportation funding programs. Proper implementation often
requires the reworking of program criteria to ensure full inclusion of all modes
(American Planning Association 2010, 71-72). One challenge, however, is that
funds have traditionally been allocated according to mode and as a result,
projects are thought of in modal terms rather than multimodal terms. This
complicates the funding process of Complete Streets projects.
Communities with Complete Streets policies are demonstrating that it is
possible to escape these modal funding silos when using federal funds.
Several communities who have passed Complete Streets laws—including
Seattle and Portland—have used more than 10 federal programs to fund
transportation improvements, such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) program and the Surface Transportation Program (STP)
(American Planning Association 2010, 72).
chapter 6: measurement and funding
A few other cities have tied new transportation funding sources that were
approved by voters to the accommodation of all users. Such funding streams
guarantee that Complete Streets projects will move forward and offer
important leverage for other funds (American Planning Association 2010, 72).
Seattle’s nine-year “Bridging the Gap” transportation funding levy is a good
example of a voter-approved initiative that is designed to fund Complete
Streets projects.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Getting the Most out of Your Dollars
With proper planning and thought, communities can identify many effective
Complete Streets improvements that can be accomplished at little or no
extra cost, yet yield big results. For example, paint costs very little but can
transform corridors from four-lane high-speed arterials to major bicycle
routes. The Stone Way North and West Nickerson Street rechannelization
projects in Seattle are a good example of how far a little paint can go. These
“road diets” eliminated two of the four automobile travel lanes, added a
center turn lane and provided bike lanes in both directions. The Seattle
Department of Transportation has stated that the rechannelization of these
corridors is to “make the street better for pedestrians and bicyclists, reduce
vehicle speeds, and reduce collisions… narrowing the space for motor
vehicles has been shown to reduce travel speeds, while not decreasing the
capacity of the street” (Seattle Department of Transportation 2009). Portland
and Seattle have also installed bike corrals—on-street bicycle parking in the
space where a car would normally parallel park.
Changing the prioritization and style of pedestrian crossings, installation
of bike-only traffic lights, use of bus priority signals and other operational
improvements is also an important aspect of Complete Streets. Simple but
effective measures such as these make it apparent that all modes are not only
expected but also welcomed (American Planning Association 2010, 68).
Another important way to manage costs is to take an incremental planning
approach to projects and take advantage of opportunities as they present
themselves. For example, when signal detectors are moved in Seattle, the
city also installs bike loop detectors to allow cyclists to activate the signal.
In University Place, Washington, planners and engineers took advantage of
50
utilities projects to install the city’s first sidewalks, paying only the marginal
cost of the sidewalk installation.
This incremental approach means a community can focus on filling in the
gaps of its transportation network as projects come to the table. Seattle’s
ordinance specifically allows planners and engineers to view projects in
an incremental way, a principle described by Barbara Gray, transportation
system design and planning manager at SDOT, as “a powerful tool in both
managing costs and expectations” (American Planning Association 2010, 70).
One caveat, however, is that communities using this approach must have a
clear system to achieve the needed improvements and should not simply put
off improvements into the indefinite future.
Putting Cost into Perspective
It is important for city staff and elected officials to remember that when all
is said and done, the cost of accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists—
including better access to (and for) transit—represents a very small
percentage of a city or region’s transportation budget. Full implementation
of a Complete Streets policy, which can take decades, may actually cost less
than a single bridge project or a handful of highway interchanges—projects
that often only benefit one type of roadway user: automobile drivers.
Communities that express a clear desire for adopting Complete Streets
policies must accept that some projects will be more expensive than others.
However, the costs are often tempered by the communities’ understanding
that Complete Streets will benefit all users and the belief that non-motorized
and transit improvements are necessary for the livability and sustainability of
the community. Michael Ronkin, national bike and pedestrian expert, may
have said it best when he stated, “That’s the whole beauty of the Complete
Streets movement: it becomes normal. It’s like adding insulation to a
house; people understand that it’s an upfront cost, but that it is absolutely
necessary” (American Planning Association 2010, 77).
works cited
Airport Corridor Transportation Association. "Rethinking the Suburban Bus Stop." http://www.
acta-pgh.org/nu_upload/BusStopBook2LOW_copy1.pdf (accessed November 22, 2010).
American Planning Association. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices.
Edited by Barbara McCann and Suzanne Rynne. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association,
2010.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Burden, Dan. “Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods.” Transportation Research
Board, 1999.
51
Manuals.” Planetizen. August 31, 2009. http://www.planetizen.com/node/40394 (accessed
2010).
—. "Rethinking the Street Space: Toolkits and Street Design Manuals." Planetizen. August
31, 2009. http://www.planetizen.com/node/40394 (accessed 2010).
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context
Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010.
City of Charlotte. “Urban Street Design Guidelines (Draft).” Charlotte, 2007.
Kreck, J. Kevin. “Caught in the Middle: The Fight for Narrow Residential Streets.” ITE 14th
International Conference. 1998.
City of Denver. Land Use Transportation Plan. denvergov.org.
LaPlante, John, and Barbara McCann. “We Can Get There from Here.” ITE Journal, 2008.
City of Eugene Planning Division. Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Multi-Modal Street
Design. Eugene: City of Eugene.
McCann, Barbara. "Driven to Spend." Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. http://www.
transact.org/report.asp?id=36.
City of Issaquah, Washington. Newport Way Northwest. http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Page.
asp?NavID=2264 (accessed December 6, 2010).
—. "Complete Streets 2009 - Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Street Successes." On Common
Ground, Summer 2009: 48-51.
City of New Haven. City of Hew Haven Complete Streets Design Manual. DRAFT Design
Manual, City of New Haven, 2010.
Meyers, Drew. “Walk Score Are Now on Zillow.” Zillow Blog. February 4, 2009. http://www.zillow.
com/blog/walk-scores-are-now-on-zillow/2009/02/24/ (accessed December 22, 2010).
City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. Bikeway Facility Design: Survey of Best Practices.
Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030: Appendix D, Portland: City of Portland, 2010.
National Complete Streets Coalition. Completing the Streets for Better Transit. November
4, 2009. http://www.completestreets.org/resources/completing-the-streets-for-better-transit/
(accessed November 2010).
City of Seattle. City Council Bills and Ordinances. April 24, 2007. http://clerk.ci.seattle.
wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CBOR&s1=115861.cbn.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/%7Epub
lic/cbor2.htm&r=1&f=G (accessed November 1, 2010).
—. "Complete Streets Improve Safety for Everyone." http://www.completestreets.org/
webdocs/factsheets/cs-safety.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
Daisa, James, and John Peers. “Narrow Residential Streets: Do They Really Slow Down Speeds.”
1997.
—. "Complete Streets in Small Towns." http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/
factsheets/cs-rural.pdf (accessed November 1, 2010).
Davis, Todd, and Monica Hale. Public Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Reduction. McLean, Virginia: Science Applications International Corporation, 2007.
—. "Complete Streets Lower Transporation Costs." http://www.completestreets.org/
webdocs/factsheets/cs-individuals.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
Federal Highway Administration. “Pedestrian Facilities User Guide: Providing Safety and
Mobility.” 2002.
—. "Complete Streets Make for a Good Ride." http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/
factsheets/cs-transit.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
Frank, L.D., and S. Kavage. “Urban Planning and Public Health: A Story of Separation and
Reconnection.” Journal of Public Health Management Practice 14 (2008): 214-220.
—. "Complete Streets Promote Good Health!" http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/
factsheets/cs-health.pdf (accessed December 22, 2010).
Frank, L.D., M.A. Andresen, and T.L. Schmid. “Obesity relationships with community design,
physical activity, and time spent in cars.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 27 (2004):
87-96.
—. "Complete Streets Spark Economic Revitalization." http://www.completestreets.org/
webdocs/factsheets/cs-revitalize.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
Gresham Smith and Partners. Complete Streets Design Guidelines. Knoxville: Knoxville Regional
Transportation Planning Association, 2009.
Hawkes, Amber, and Georgia Sheridan. “Rethinking the Street Space: Toolkits and Street Design
—. "Create Livable Communities." http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/factsheets/cslivable.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
—. "Networks of Complete Streets." http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/factsheets/
cs-networks.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
works cited
—. "Policy Elements." http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/
(accessed November 4, 2010).
2001.” Bureau of Transporation Statistics. www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_
national_household_travel_survey (accessed October 29, 2010).
—. Progress Report 2010. Washington, D.C.: National Complete Streets Coalition, 2010.
University of Minesota. Context Sensitive Solutions. 2010. http://www.cts.umn.edu/
contextsensitive/index.html (accessed November 3, 2010).
Noland, Dr. Robert B. “Traffic Fatalities and Injuries: The Effect of Changes In Infrastructure and
Other Trends.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003: 36.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Wide Paved Shoulders.” Bicycle Facilities Guide:
Types of Bicycle Accommodations. http://www.campo-nc.us/BPSG/docs/NCDOT_on_Wide_
Paved_Shoulders.pdf (accessed November 12, 2010).
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
52
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission. "Complete Streets Planning
& Design Guidelines." May 2010. http://www.nirpc.org/transportation/pdf/
CompleteStreetsGuidelinesFINAL.pdf (accessed November 8, 2010).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. "Complete Streets Laws and Ordinances."
bicyclinginfo.org. http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/ENG.CompleteStreetsLawsandOrd
inances.pdf (accessed December 6, 2010).
PEDSAFE, USDOT, FHA. Recommended Guidelines/Priorities for Sidwalks and Walkways. http://
www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/moreinfo_sidewalks.cfm.
Ridgway, Matthew - Fehr & Peer. "Residential Streets - Quality of Life Assessment." 1997.
Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality. Complete Streets Best Practices. Sacramento:
Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality, 2005.
Seattle Department of Transportation. “Equity, Health, and Environment Tools.” Seattle
Pedestrian Master Plan. City of Seattle, 2009. http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/pedestrian_
masterplan/pedestrian_toolbox/tools_ehe.htm (accessed December 22, 2010).
—. "Complete Streets Checklist." City of Seattle, January 2010.
—. "Nickerson Rechannelization Facts and Answers." City of Seattle, March 4, 2009.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/NickersonRechannelizationFAQ.pdf (accessed
November 9, 2010).
Strate, Harry E., E. Humstone, S. McMahon, L. Gibson, B.D. Bender. “Functional Classification
for Mulimodal Planning.” Transportation Research Board, 2007.
Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options. April 14,
2004. http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=232 (accessed December 22, 2010).
Swift, Peter. "Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency." 2003.
Thunderhead Alliance. Thunderhead Alliance Guide to Complete Streets Campaigns. New York:
iUniverse, Inc., 2006.
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Highlights of the National Household Travel Survey
Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. “Context Sensitive Design - Roadway Design That Is
Responsive To Local Community Values.” TDM Encyclopedia. January 26, 2010. http://www.vtpi.
org/tdm/tdm57.htm (accessed November 3, 2010).
Walk Score. "Walkable Neighborhoods." http://www.walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.
shtml (accessed December 22, 2010).
recommended resources
Primary Resources Us ed for This Guide
Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable
Communities: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Completestreets.org
53
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, 2001. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2003. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
Thunderhead Alliance Guide to Complete Streets Campaigns
Washington State Design Manual, Division 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. http://
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm
Complete Streets Design Guidelines (FHWA, FTA, USDOT, Tennessee Dept. of
Transportation)
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, (1998), FHWA, HSR 20, 6300
Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA .
Best Practices for Complete Streets: Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative
Bicycle Facility Design Standards, 1998. City of Philadelphia Streets Department, 1401 JFK
Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices
City of New Haven Complete Streets Design Manual
Tacoma Complete Streets Design Guidelines
Pedestrian Facility Design Guidance (FHWA)
Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, A Recommended Practice, 1998. Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, S.W, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20024-2729,
Phone: (202) 554-8050.
Pedestrian Compatible Roadways-Planning and Design Guidelines, 1995. Bicycle /
Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocate, New Jersey
Department of Transportation, 1035 Parkway Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08625, Phone: (609)
530-4578.
Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit: An Advocacy Handbook, 1998. Federal Transit
Administration / WalkBoston. NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas,
Report No. 294A, Transportation Research Board, Box 289, Washington, DC 20055, Phone:
(202) 334-3214.
Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, 1997. Washington State Department of Transportation,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, P.O. Box 47393, Olympia, WA 98504.
Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998. Portland Pedestrian Program, 1120 SW Fifth Ave,
Room 802; Portland, OR 97210. (503) 823-7004.
Bicycle Facility Design Resources (FHWA)
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999., American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, 200906716, Phone: (888) 227-4860.
Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists, 1993. FHWA, R&T
Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Ct, Unit Q; Lanham, MD 20706. (301) 577-1421 (fax only)
North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, 1994. North Carolina
DOT, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611. (919) 733-2804.
Bicycle Facility Planning, 1995. Pinsof & Musser. American Planning Association, Planning
Advisory Service Report # 459. American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave, Suite
1600; Chicago, IL 60603.
Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, 1994. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
Evaluation of Shared-use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles, 1996. Florida DOT,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
appendix
Appendix A
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Model Wa shington State Complete Streets
Ordinances
1.
Seattle
2.
Kirkland
3.
Redmond
4.
Renton
5.
Sedro-Woolley
54
Council Meeting: 10/03/2006
Agenda: Unfinished Business
Item #: 10. a.
ORDINANCE NO. 4061
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KIRKLAND RELATING TO BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN WAYS ALONG TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
The City Council of the City of Kirkland do ordain as follows:
Section 1. The Kirkland Municipal Code is amended by the addition of
a new Section 19.08.055 to read as follows:
19.08.055 Bicycle and pedestrian ways along transportation
facilities.
(1) Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be accommodated in the planning,
development and construction of transportation facilities, including the
incorporation of such ways into transportation plans and programs.
(2) Notwithstanding that provision of paragraph (1), bicycle and pedestrian
ways are not required to be established:
(a) Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety;
(b) When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the
need or probable use;
(c) Where there is no identified need;
(d) Where the establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan
policies; or
(e) In instances where a documented exception is granted by the
Public Works Director.
Passed by majority vote of the Kirkland City Council in open meeting
this _____ day of ______________, 2006.
Signed in authentication
________________, 2006.
thereof
this
_____
day
____________________________
MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
____________________________
City Attorney
of
Council Meeting: 10/03/2006
Agenda: Unfinished Business
Item #: 10. a.
Transportation Commission
June 23, 2006
Page 2
made for pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, in cases where the cost outweighs the need and
benefit, the proposed language allows flexibility to the Public Works Director.
We believe the Complete Streets Ordinance both confirms our existing practice and ensures we
continue this emphasis in the future. By adoption of this ordinance by the City Council, Kirkland
will be the first City to do so in the State of Washington.
It is recommended that the Complete Streets language be placed in a new section (ยง19.08.055) of
the Kirkland Municipal code, preceding material that describes general requirements of street
lighting and following general information about the 6 year Transportation Improvement Plan.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER
4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 6, STREET
AND UTILITY STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF
ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON", TO UPDATE M I N I M U M STREET DESIGN
STANDARDS WITH COMPLETE STREETS PRINCIPLES TO ENABLE SAFE AND
CONVENIENT ACCESS AND TRAVEL FOR ALL USERS, AND TO FOSTER A SENSE OF
PLACE IN THE PUBLIC REALM WITH ATTRACTIVE DESIGN AMENITIES.
WHEREAS, the goal of the Transportation Element in the Renton Comprehensive Plan is
to provide a balanced multi-modal transportation system with various transportation choices
such as automobiles, buses, rail, transit, bicycles, and walking, that will serve existing and future
residential and employment growth; and
WHEREAS, Renton Comprehensive Plan policy states non-motorized transportation
modes should be developed in tandem with motorized transportation systems, recognizing
safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity; and
WHEREAS, Renton Comprehensive Plan policy promotes new developments and
attractive, safe, and healthy neighborhoods that are walkable places to live, shop, play, and get
to work without having to drive; and
WHEREAS, Renton Comprehensive Plan promotes and encourages pedestrian and
bicycle traffic within all areas of the City and not only as a viable means of transportation, but
as an important method for maintaining overall health and fitness of Renton's citizens; and
WHEREAS,
Renton
Comprehensive
Plan
policy
supports
pedestrian-oriented
environments that address safety as a first priority and the use of a landscape strip along the
roadway as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles; and
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
WHEREAS, Renton Comprehensive Plan policy promotes planting trees along streets;
and
WHEREAS, Renton Comprehensive Plan policy encourages residential streets to be
constructed to the narrowest widths feasible, curb to curb, without impeding emergency
vehicle access; and
WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation,
study, and the matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning
text amendment request being in conformity with the Renton Comprehensive Plan, as
amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
Subsection 4-4-0801.3.b, Single Family and Duplex Uses, of Chapter 4,
City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance
No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby
amended to read as follows:
b. Single Family and Duplex Uses: The maximum width of single loaded
garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and double loaded garage
driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16').
SECTION II.
Subsection 4-6-060A, Purpose, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
5 5 1 7
A. PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this section to establish design standards and
development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and
safe access to public and private properties. These improvements include
appropriately scaled sidewalks related to the urban context, a range of
landscape buffers, curbs, gutters, street paving, monumentation, signage, and
lighting, to be developed with complete streets principles. Complete streets
principles are to plan, design, and operate streets to enable safe and convenient
access and travel for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers, and
to foster a sense of place in the public realm with attractive design amenities.
SECTION III.
Subsection 4-6-060B, Administering and Enforcing Authority, of Chapter
6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended
to read as follows:
B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY:
The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development and/or designee is responsible for the general administration and
coordination of this section.
SECTION IV.
Subsection 4-6-060C, Applicability, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
C. APPLICABILITY:
The standards in this section will be used for all public and private street
improvements within the City of Renton. Whenever a building permit is applied
for or application made for a short plat or a full subdivision, the applicant for
such
permit
and/or
application
shall
build
and
install
certain
street
improvements, including, but not limited to: lighting on all adjacent right-ofways, and all private street improvements on access easements. The minimum
design standards for streets are listed in the tables set forth in subsection 4-6060F.2.
These
standards
will
determine
specific
street
improvement
requirements for development projects, including short plats and subdivisions.
SECTION V.
Subsection 4-6-060E.3, Waiver of Dedication, of Chapter 6, Street and
Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3. Waiver of Dedication: The Administrator of the Community and Economic
Development and/or designee may waive the requirement for additional rightof-way dedication pursuant to RMC 4-9-250C, Waiver Procedures, where it is
determined by the Administrator and/or designee that construction of full street
improvements is not anticipated in the future.
SECTION VI.
Subsection 4-6-060F, Public Street and Sidewalk Design Standards, of
Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No.
4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
amended to change the title to "Public Street Right-of-Way Design Standards", and to read as
follows.
F. PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Level of Improvements: The minimum level of street improvements
required are listed in the following tables including but not limited to curbs,
planting strips, sidewalks, and lighting.
a. Street Lighting Exemption: No street lighting is required for the
following smaller project sizes: 2-4 units for residential; 0-5,000 square feet
commercial; or 0-10,000 square feet industrial.
b. Additional Walkway Requirement: A pedestrian walkway to the
arterial is required for the following larger project sizes with more than: 20 units
residential; 10,000 square feet commercial; or 20,000 square feet industrial.
2. Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys: All such
improvements shall be constructed to the City Standards for Municipal Public
Works Construction. Standards for construction shall be as specified in the
following table, and by the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development and/or designee.
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE FOR PUBLIC STREETS AND ALLEYS:
Minimum
Design
Functional Classifications: Public Streets and Alleys
Standards
(1- see notes)
Principal
Minor
' Commercial- j Commercial-
Residential
Limited
Alleys
ORDINANCE N O . 5 5 1 7
Arterial
Arterial
!
Mixed Use,
Mixed Use
Industrial, &
& Industrial
Neighborhood
Access
Access
Residential
Access
Collector
Arterial
Design
See Standa rd Drawing or Pavement section and may be d esigned using procedures described in
the WSDOT Design Manual, latest edition.
Average Daily
14,000-
3,000-
Vehicle Trips
40,000
20,000
Right of Way
4 lanes-
4 lanes-91'
(R-O-W)
91'
Structural
3,000-14,000
0- 3,000
0- 3,000
0-250
N/A
2 lanes-83'
2 lane- 69'
2 lanes- 53'
1 lane-45'
Res.- 16'
5 lanes-103' 3 lanes- 94'
3 lane- 80'
(ADT)
5 lanes103'
6 lanes-
Com.-16'
6 lanes-113'
7 lanes-125'
113'
7 lanes125'
8' both
8' both
8' both sides
sides (3)
sides (3)
(3)
Planting
8'
8' between
8' between
Strips (4)
between
curb & walk
curb &
both sides
Sidewalks (2)
6' both sides
5' both
5' both
sides
sides
8' between
8' between
8' between
curb & walk
curb & walk
curb & walk
curb & walk
both sides
both sides
both sides
both sides
None
None
walk both
sides
Tree grates and hardscape may be substituted for
May be reduced if
planting str ip area if approved by Reviewing Official.
approved by Reviewing
Official (5)
Street Trees
Required, see Street Trees Standards RMC 4-4-070
N/A
ORDINANCE NO.
Curbs
5517
Curb
Curb both
Curb both
Curb both
Curb both
Curb both
both
sides
sides
sides
sides
sides
Allowed
Allowed at
8' both sides
8' both sides
6' one side
6' one side
at 8'
8'
(6)
(6)
None
None
N/A
1 lane-12'
Res.- 12'
None
sides
Parking Lanes
Bicycle
All classifications of Arterials will have
Facilities (7)
Class 1, or Class II, or Class III bicycle
None
facility.
Paved
4 lanes-
Roadway
54'
Width, not
including
parking
5 lanes66'
6 lanes-
4 lanes-54'
2 lanes-30'
2 lanes- 20'
5 lanes- 66'
3 lanes-41'
3 lanes-31'
2 lanes- 20'
(8)
Com.16'
6 lanes- 76'
7 lanes- 88'
76'
7 lanes88'
Lane Widths
ll'travel lanes, 5' bike
10' travel lanes, 10' travel lanes
1 travel
0)
lanes, and 12' center
5' bike lanes,
lane-12' (8)
left turn lanes.
and 11' center
Com.-
turn lanes.
16'
Center
Center median allowed for boulevard
Median
treatment and center left turn lane.
Res.-12'
N/A
Width will be width of center left turn
lane minus 1-foot from thru traffic travel
lanes on both sides. Pull-outs with a
minimum 25 foot length required for
maintenance and emergency vehicles
within the median at intervals of 300350'
Pedestrian
Curb bulb-outs required where on-street p arking is located.
N/A
N/A
35'
25' turning
N/A
Bulb-outs
Intersection
35' turning
35' turning
25' turning
25' turning
ORDINANCE NO.
Radii (10)
turning
radius
radius (11)
5517
radius (11)
radius
radius
radius
At the intersection of two classes of streets, the radius for the higher class street is
to be used. Where larger trucks, transit and school buses are anticipated, further
design will be required to determine an adequate radius. The minimum curb radius
is 15 feet.
Cul-de-sacs
Limited application per RMC 4-6-060H.
Limited application. See
N/A
RMC 4-6-060H for
pavement and R-O-W
widths when permitted.
Maximum
0.5-8%
0.5-8%
0.5-10%
Grades
Site Access
0.5-15%, greater than 15% only allowed
0.5-15%
within approved hillside subdivisions.
Determined 125' from
125' from
on a case-
intersection
intersection
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
by-case
basis.
Street &
Architectural street and pedestrian lighting standards will be established on a case-
Pedestrian
by-case basis for streets. Street lights above the roadway are required at each
Lighting
corner of a street intersection only. Pedestrian scale lighting is required between
N/A
street intersections and at each corner of an intersection.
NOTES AND CONDITIONS: M I N I M U M DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE FOR PUBLIC STREETS AND
ALLEYS:
(1) Minimum design standards may be altered to allow alternative stormwater
management and low impact development techniques within the R-O-W by the
Department.
(2) Sidewalk width will be 12 feet both sides in the City Center Community Planning Area.
This sidewalk width includes street tree grates for locating street trees.
(3) Sidewalk areas may be required at a wider width to accommodate required multi-use
path facilities when a Class 1 multi-use path is required within a street R-O-W by the
Department. The width of a required 5 foot bicycle lane will be transferred to the sidewalk
area to create a Class 1 multi-use path.
(4) Maintenance Responsibilities: Unless otherwise agreed upon by the City of Renton,
maintenance of landscaping within the planting strip area, including but not limited to
elements such as groundcover, turf, softscape, and hardscape, is the responsibility of the
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
adjacent property owner. Maintenance for street trees within the public right-of-way shall
be the responsibility of the City of Renton.
(5) Planting strips maybe reduced if one of the following conditions is met: a) when R-O-W
acquisition is problematic; or b) when critical areas would be impacted. If approved, a
permanent alternative landscaped area should be provided equal or greater than the
allowed planting strip area reduction that is in addition to any minimum existing code
requirements.
(6) A second parking lane may be required by the Reviewing Official.
(7) Class II bicycle facilities (bike lanes) included in roadway width for both sides. Bicycle
facilities that are shared travel lanes, Class III bicycle facilities, require less roadway width.
Class III travel lanes are a minimum of 14 feet.
(8) Requirement: Either fire sprinklers shall be provided as approved by Fire & Emergency
Services or a clear roadway area shall be provided for emergency vehicles midblock. All of
the clear area must be 20 feet in width for vehicular movement with a minimum length of
50 feet and maximum length of 100 feet, so as to provide emergency access to homes
within 150 feet. Along the clear area only, the planting strip would not be required and the
clear area will be in place of the landscaping area.
(9) The City may require different lane width dimensions to address safety concerns or to
meet state and federal requirements for state routes or grant funding.
(10) Turning radius dimensions represent the vehicle turning path. The smallest curb radius
should be used while maintaining the specified turning radius. Lane width and the presence
of a bike lane and parking lane affect a vehicle's turning path. On streets with more than
one lane in that direction of travel, large vehicles may encroach into no more than one-half
of the adjacent travel lane to complete the turn. On Arterials and Collector Arterials,
encroachment into oncoming travel lanes is unacceptable. The minimum curb radius is 15
feet.
(11) Turning radius for streets which include industrial access may increase to 50 feet.
3. Length of Improvements: Such improvements shall extend the full
distance of such property to be improved upon and sought to be occupied as a
building site or parking area for the aforesaid building or platting purposes, and
which may abut property dedicated as a public street.
ORDINANCE NO. 5 5 1 7
4. Additional Alley Standards: Alleys may be used for vehicular access, but
are not to be considered as the primary access for emergency or Fire
Department concerns. Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for
properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. Refer to RMC 47-150.
5. Pavement Thickness: New pavement shall be a minimum of four inches
(4") of asphalt over six inches (6") of crushed rock. Pavement thickness for new
arterial or collector streets or widening of arterials or collector streets must be
approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
Pavement thickness design shall be based on standard engineering procedures.
For the purposes of asphalt pavement design, the procedures described by the
"Asphalt Institute's Thickness Design Manual" (latest edition) will be accepted by
the Department.
Alternate design procedures or materials may be used if
approved by the Department through the process listed in RMC 4-9-250E.
6. Minimum Sidewalk Measurements: New sidewalks must provide a
minimum of four feet (4') of horizontal clearance from all vertical obstructions.
Sidewalk widths include the curb width for those sidewalks constructed abutting
or attached to the curb.
7. Curves:
a. Horizontal Curves: Where a deflection angle of more than ten degrees
(10째) in the alignment of a street occurs, a curve of reasonably long radius shall
10
ORDINANCE NO. 5517
be introduced, subject to review and approval of the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development and/or designee.
b. Vertical Curves: All changes in grade shall be connected by vertical
curves of a minimum length of two hundred feet (200') unless specified
otherwise by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development and/or designee.
c. Tangents for Reverse Curves: A tangent of at least two hundred feet
(200') in length shall be provided between reverse curves for arterials; one
hundred fifty feet (150') for collectors and one hundred feet (100') for residential
access streets.
8. City Center Planning Area and Urban Design Districts - Special Standards:
Greater sidewalk widths may be required in the City Center Planning Area and
Urban Design Districts as part of site plan review for specific projects. The
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development
and/or designee may require that sidewalks be extended from property line to
the curb with provisions made for street trees and other landscaping
requirements, street lighting, and fire hydrants.
9. Vehicular Access and Connection Points To and From the State Highway
System:
a. Chapter 47.50 RCW, Highway Access Management, is hereby adopted
by reference to provide for the regulation and control of vehicular access and
11
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
connection points of ingress to and egress from the state highway system within
the incorporated areas of the City of Renton.
b. Pursuant to Chapter 47.50 RCW, the provisions of Chapters 468-51
and 468-52 WAC, together with all future amendments, are hereby adopted and
incorporated by reference.
c. At least one (1) copy of each law, rule or regulation adopted hereby is
on file with the City Clerk and available for inspection by the public.
SECTION VII. Subsection of 4-6-060G, Dead End Streets, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to change the title
to "Complete Streets", and to read as follows:
G. COMPLETE STREETS:
1. Complete Streets: The City of Renton will plan for, design, and construct
transportation
projects
to
appropriately
provide
accommodations
for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, and freight and
motor vehicles, including the incorporation of such facilities into transportation
plans and programs.
2. Exemptions: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not required to be
established when it is concluded by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development and/or designee that application of
complete streets principles is unnecessary or inappropriate:
a. Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety; or
12
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
b. When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or
probable use; or
c. Where there is no identified long-term need; or
d. Where the establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies;
or
e. Where the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development and/or designee grants a documented exemption which
may only be authorized in specific situations where conditions warrant. Such
site-specific exemptions shall not constitute general changes to the minimum
street standards established in this chapter RMC 4-6-060.
SECTION VIM. Subsection 4-6-060H, Alley Standards, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to change the title
to "Dead End Streets", and to read as follows:
H. DEAD END STREETS:
1. Limited Application: Cul-de-sac and dead end streets are limited in
application and may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where, due to
demonstrable physical constraints, no future connection to a larger street
pattern is physically possible.
2. Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds When Permitted - Minimum Requirements:
Minimum standards for dead end streets, if approved by the Department of
Community and Economic Development, are as follows:
13
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
LENGTH OF STREET
TYPE OF TURNAROUND
For up to 150' in length
No turnaround required.
From 150' to 300' in
length
Dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac
required.
From 300' to 500' in
length
Cul-de-sac required.
From 500' to 700' in
length
Cul-de-sac required.
Fire sprinkler system required for houses.
Longer than 700' in length Two means of access and fire sprinklers required for
all houses beyond 500'.
3. Turnaround Design: The hammerhead turnaround shall have a design
approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development and/or designee and Fire and Emergency Services.
4. Cul-de-Sac Design: Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved and
landscaped radius of forty five feet (45') with a right-of-way radius of fifty five
feet (55') for the turnaround. A landscaped center island with a radius of twenty
feet (20') delineated by curbing shall be provided in the cul-de-sac. The
landscaping shall be maintained by the homeowners' association or adjacent
property owners. The cul-de-sac turnaround shall have a design approved by the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development
and/or designee and Fire and Emergency Services.
5. Secondary Access Requirement: Secondary access for
emergency
equipment is required when a development of three (3) or more buildings is
located more than two hundred feet (200') from a public street.
14
ORDINANCE NO. 5517
6. Waiver of Turnaround: The requirement for a turnaround or cul-de-sac
may be waived by the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development and/or designee with approval of Fire and Emergency
Services when the development proposal will not create an increased need for
emergency operations pursuant to RMC 4-9-250C, Waiver Procedures.
SECTION IX.
Subsection 4-6-0601, Street Lighting Standards, of Chapter 6, Street and
Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to change the
title to "Street and Pedestrian Lighting Standards", and to read as follows:
I.
STREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING STANDARDS:
1. Lighting Design: Architectural street lighting standards will be established
on a case-by-case basis for streets.
2. Lighting Location: Street lighting is only required at street intersections,
where each corner of the intersection shall have a street light. Pedestrian
lighting for sidewalks and pathways shall be installed between intersections
along streets and at intersection corners.
3. Average Maintained Illumination: The street lighting shall be constructed
to provide average maintained horizontal illumination as illustrated below. The
lighting levels shall be governed by roadway classification and area zoning
classification. Values are in horizontal foot-candles at the pavement surface
when the light source is at its lowest level.
15
ORDINANCE NO. 5517
CommercialMixed-Use Industrial Residential
Principal Arterial 2.0
2.0
1.0
Minor Arterial
1.4
1.2
0.6
Collector Arterial 1.2
0.9
0.6
Access Street
0.6
0.2
0.9
4. Uniformity Ratios: Uniformity ratios for the street lighting shall meet or
exceed four to one (4:1) for light levels of 0.6 foot-candles or more and six to one
(6:1) for light levels less than 0.6 foot-candles.
5. Construction Standards: Street lighting systems shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City publication, "Guidelines and Standards
for Street Lighting Design of Residential and Arterial Streets".
SECTION X.
Subsection 4-6-060J, Private Streets, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows:
J.
PRIVATE STREETS:
1. When Permitted: Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer
lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private
streets will only be permitted if a public street is not anticipated by the
Department of Community and Economic Development to be necessary for
existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or
to serve adjacent property.
16
ORDINANCE NO.
5 5 1 7
2. Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a
twenty six-foot (26') easement with a twelve-foot (12') pavement width. The
private street shall provide a turnaround meeting the minimum requirements of
this Chapter. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage
improvements per City Code are required, as well as an approved pavement
thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock).
The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%),
except for within approved hillside subdivisions. The land area included in
private street easements shall not be included in the required minimum lot area
for purposes of subdivision.
3. Signage
Required:
Appurtenant
traffic
control
devices
including
installation of traffic and street name signs, as required by the Department of
Community and Economic Development, shall be provided by the subdivider.
The street name signs will include a sign labeled "Private Street".
4. Easement Required: An easement will be required to create the private
street.
5. Timing of Improvements: The private street must be installed prior to
recording of the plat unless deferred.
SECTION XI.
Subsection 4-6-060K, Shared Driveways, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to change the title
to "Shared Driveways - When Permitted", and to read as follows:
17
ORDINANCE NO. 5 5 1 7
K. SHARED DRIVEWAYS - WHEN PERMITTED:
A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of
four (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access
for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a
street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular
access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a
minimum of sixteen feet (16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet (12')
paved driveway. Minimum turnaround requirements for emergency access to
lots can be found in RMC 4-6-060H.
SECTION XII. Subsection 4-6-060L, Timing For Installation of Improvements, of Chapter
6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended
to read as follows:
L.
TIMING FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS:
No building shall be granted a certificate of final occupancy, or plat or short
plat recorded, until all the required street improvements are constructed in a
satisfactory manner and approved by the responsible departments unless those
improvements
remaining
unconstructed
have
been
deferred
by
the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development
and/or designee and security for such unconstructed improvements has been
satisfactorily posted.
18
ORDINANCE NO.
5517
SECTION XIII. Subsection 4-6-060N, Review of Construction Plans, of Chapter 6, Street
and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as
follows:
N. REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS:
1. Submittal: All street improvement plans prepared shall be submitted for
review and approval to the Department of Community and Economic
Development. All plans and specifications for such improvements are to be
submitted at the time application for a building permit is made or, for plats, prior
to construction (street/utility) permit issuance.
2. Fees ar
md Submittal
Requirements: All permits
required for the
construction of these improvements shall be applied for and obtained in the
same manner and same conditions as specified in Chapter 9-10 RMC, relating to
excavating or disturbing streets, alleys, pavement or improvements. Fees shall
be as stipulated in RMC 4-1-180. Money derived from the above charges shall be
deposited to the General Fund.
Half of the fee is due and payable upon
submittal for a construction permit application, and the remainder is due and
payable prior to issuance of the construction permit.
3. Cost Estimate Required: The applicant will be required to submit a cost
estimate for the improvements. This will be reviewed by the Department of
Community and Economic Development for accuracy.
19
ORDINANCE NO. 5517
SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-6-060Q, Variations From Standards, of Chapter 6, Street and
Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Q. VARIATIONS FROM STANDARDS:
1. Alternates, Modifications, Waivers, Variances: See RMC 4-9-250.
a. When Permitted: Half street improvements may be allowed for a
residential access street by the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development and/or designee when it is determined that the
adjacent parcel of property has the potential for future development and
dedication of the right-of-way necessary for the completion of the street rightof-way.
b. Minimum Design Standards: The right-of-way for the half street
improvement must be a minimum of thirty-five feet (35') with twenty feet (20')
paved. A curb, planting strip area, and sidewalk shall be installed on the
development side of the street according to the minimum design standards for
public streets. If the street is permitted a cul-de-sac, then the right-of-way for
the half of the cul-de-sac shall be dedicated, with installation of a temporary
hammerhead turnaround. The property shall also dedicate easements to the City
for street lighting and fire hydrants. Additional easements shall be provided for
the franchise utilities outside of the dedicated right-of-way.
20
ORDINANCE NO. 5 5 1 7
c. Standards for Completion of the Half Street: When the adjacent parcel
is platted or developed, the additional right-of-way width needed to complete
the type of street classification shall be dedicated from the developing property.
The pavement shall then be widened to the width needed to complete the type
of street classification, curb, planting strip, and sidewalk shall be installed on the
developing side of the street. If the street is a dead end street requiring a cul-desac, then the developing parcel shall dedicate the remainder of the right-of-way
for the cul-de-sac and construct the final complete cul-de-sac, including curb,
sidewalk, and other required improvements.
SECTION XV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5)
days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
1 4 t h d a v of D e c e m b e r
;
2009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
14th
d a y of D e c e m b e r
; 2 009.
iS&ijul A # ^
Denis Law, Mayor
Approygdjas t o form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 9
(summary)
ORD:1607:11/20/09
21
appendix
Appendix B
Example National Poli cy a nd Legal Analysis
Network (NPLAN) Language
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
The National Policy and Legal Analysis Network (NPLAN) has produced
model comprehensive plan language focused on Complete Streets
principles. This language can be used for guidance as communities update
their comprehensive and transportation plans to reflect Complete Streets
goals and objectives.
Communities may choose to incorporate the following vision statement
and policies into the transportation element of their comprehensive plan.
Communities are encouraged to amend the following statements and
policies to fit the needs and character of the community.
Example: Transportation Vision Statement
The community of [ Jurisdiction ] envisions a transportation system
that encourages healthy, active living, promotes transportation options
and independent mobility, increases community safety and access to
healthy food, reduces environmental impact, mitigates climate change,
and supports greater social interaction and community identity by
providing safe and convenient travel along and across streets through
a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for pedestrians,
bicyclists, public transportation riders and drivers, [insert other significant
local users if desired, e.g. drivers of agricultural vehicles, emergency
vehicles, freight, etc.] and people of all ages and abilities, including
children, youth, families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities.
Example: Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal T1: Provide safe and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and
public transportation to increase use of these modes of transportation,
enable convenient and active travel as part of daily activities, reduce
pollution, and meet the needs of all users of the streets, including
children, families, older adults, and people with disabilities.
55
Objective T1.1: Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design
features into street design and construction to create safe and inviting
environments for all users to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.
T1.1.1. In planning, designing, and constructing Complete Streets:
Include infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users
along the right-of-way, such as sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes,
and paved shoulders.
The full text of NPLANâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model comprehensive plan language on Complete
Streets can be found at this website: http://www.nplanonline.org/nplan/
products/model-comprehensive-plan-language-complete-streets
The full text of NPLANâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Complete Streets laws and resolutions templates can
be found at this website: http://www.nplanonline.org/nplan/products/modelcomplete-streets-laws-and-resolutions
appendix
Appendix C
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
City of Seattle Complete Stree ts Checklist ( D raft,
January 2010)
56
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Intent
SDOT will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to
provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrian, bicyclists, transit riders, freight, and persons of
all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users.
Complete Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of
smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. It is the Mayor’s and Council’s intent
that all sources of transportation funding be drawn upon to implement Complete Streets. The
City believes that maximum financial flexibility is important to implementing Complete Streets
principles.
This checklist was developed to ensure SDOT projects meet these goals and help to sort through
potentially conflicting modal priorities. Please reference the following materials to help guide you
through this checklist:
• Complete Streets - (DRAFT) Street Type Design Guidelines
• Chapter 4.2 of the Right-of-Way Improvements Manual
Project:
Average Daily Traffic:
If available,
Pedestrian Counts:
Bicycle Counts:
Truck Volumes:
Classifications
What is the Traffic Classification? (see map)
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector Arterial
Non-Arterial
What is the Transit Classification? (see map)
Transit Way
Principal
Major
Minor
Local
Is this project located on a route with one of the following classifications?
Major Truck Street
Urban Village Transit Network
Urban Trail & Bikeway
SFD Non-arterial Route
-1-
Boulevard
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Street Types
What is the Street Type(s)? (see map)
Regional Connector
Commercial Connector
Local Connector
Main Street
Mixed Use Street
Industrial Access Street
Green Street
Neighborhood Green Street
Review the priority elements matrix (page 11)
Describe any priority elements included in this project:
Describe any priority elements NOT included in this project:
-2-
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Sidewalks and Crosswalks
Sidewalk maintenance
Are existing sidewalks within the project area in good condition?
Yes
No
If “no”, will they be repaired as part of this project?
If “no”, is there a plan to repair in the near future?
Yes
No
NO PARKING
Parking restrictions at crosswalks and intersections (see graphic)
Note: curb side parking shall be restricted 20’ from the back of any crosswalk (marked or implied),
and 30’ from the back of any intersection.
Does the project area include curb side parking?
Yes
No
If “yes”, describe how will the restriction be addressed (signs, physical barriers, etc.):
-3-
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Approved Plans
Yes
No
Was an SDOT sub-area plan completed within the project area?
If â&#x20AC;&#x153;yesâ&#x20AC;?, are there specific recommendations that fall within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Seattle Transit Plan/ Transit Master Plan (draft)
Are there Seattle Transit Plan/Transit Master Plan (draft) recommendations for bus stop
configuration or facilities met within the project area?
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Bus Stops
Yes
No
Are there bus stops within the project area?
Describe average distances between bus stops in/or adjacent to the project area:
If bus stops are less than 0.20 mile (1,056 ft.), can stops be consolidated?
Describe which stops could be consolidated:
-4-
Yes
No
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Bicycle Master Plan
Are there Bicycle Master Plan recommendations within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Pedestrian Master Plan (draft)
Are there Pedestrian Master Plan (draft) recommendations within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting Opportunities
Is the project within a High Priority Area as defined by the Pedestrian master Plan?
If yes, please refer project to Terry Plumb (CPRS)
Freight Mobility Action Plan
Note: Freight is important to the basic economy of the city and has unique right-of-way needs to
support that role. Complete Street improvements that are consistent with freight mobility and
support other modes should be considered.
Are there Freight Mobility Action Plan recommendations that apply to the project?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
-5-
Yes
No
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Streetscape Concept Plans (amended in Right-of-Way Improvements Manual, chapter 6)
Is there a Streetscape Concept Plan with recommendations for the project area? Yes
No
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Intellegent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Plan
Are there ITS Strategic Plan recommendations within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)
Does the project fall under the 2009 updated stormwater code?
If “no”, explain why not:
Yes
If “yes”, describe any GSI elements or techniques included in this project:
Describe any GSI recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
-6-
No
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Bands of Green
Are there recommendations in the Bands of Green Report that apply to the project?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
SDOT Art Plan
Is there an opportunity to utilize 1% for the Arts funding of implement Art Plan Toolbox elements
(e.g. signal box art, special inlays or materials) with this project?
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
SDOT Urban Forestry Management Plan
Are there opportunities to add canopy coverage and/or better protect the health of existing trees
Yes
No
with this project?
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Other Plans
Have other significant plan(s) been completed within the project area (e.g. Neighborhood or Station
Area Plans, DPD City Design projects)?
Yes
No
Describe any recommendations included in this project:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
-7-
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Project Manager Summary
Describe any Complete Streets elements that will need to be addressed outside of this project and
the division or program responsible for implementation:
How does the project accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, transit, freight, and traffic during
construction?
Describe impacts to the funding schedule and/or other commitments as a result of incorporating
Complete Streets elements:
Exceptions
In the following unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Complete Streets principles will not apply:
Does the project wholly consist of simple repairs made pursuant to the Pavement Opening and
Restoration Rule (SDOT Directorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rule 2004-02)?
Does the project wholly consist of standard maintenance activities designed to keep assets in
serviceable condition (e.g. mowing, sweeping, spot repair, and surface treatments such as chip
seal)?
Is there a plan to implement Complete Streets principles incrementally through a series of smaller
improvements or maintenance activities over time?
Does the Project Team recommend an exception to Complete Streets for this project?
Author of the exception:
Note: the Complete Streets Ordinance requires the SDOT Director to issue a documented exception
concluding that the application of Complete Streets principles is unnecessary or inappropriate because
it would be contrary to public safety; or where other available means or factors indicate an absence of
need, including future need.
-8-
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Comments:
Project Engineer:
please print
date
signature
Project Manager:
please print
date
signature
Complete Streets Coordinator:
please print
date
signature
CC Board/Division Director:
please print
date
signature
-9-
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Attachment 1:
Ordinance Number: 122386
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s Complete Streets policy, stating guiding principles and practices so that transportation
improvements are planned, designed and constructed to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe
operations for all users.
Date introduced/referred: April 9, 2007
Date passed: April 30, 2007
Status: Passed
Vote: 9-0
Date of Mayor’s signature*: May 7, 2007
Committee: Transportation
Sponsor: DRAGO, STEINBRUECK
Index Terms: TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING, PEDESTRIANS, PUBLIC-TRANSIT, BICYCLING, BIKEWAYS, BICYCLES,
LAND TRANSPORTATION
References/Related Documents: Related: Res 30915
Text
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s Complete Streets policy, stating guiding principles and practices so that transportation
improvements are planned, designed and constructed to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe
operations for all users.
WHEREAS, the City Council, with the Mayor concurring, adopted Resolution 30915 that defines the Complete Streets policy; and
WHEREAS, City policy as stated in the Transportation Strategic Plan and the Seattle Comprehensive Plan is to encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use as safe, convenient and widely available modes of transportation for all people; and
WHEREAS, Seattle’s Complete Streets guiding principle is to design, operate and maintain Seattle’s streets to promote safe and
convenient access and travel for all users --- pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all abilities, as well as freight and
motor vehicle drivers; and
WHEREAS, other jurisdictions and agencies nationwide have adopted Complete Streets legislation including the U.S. Department
of Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Boulder, Chicago and Portland;
and
WHEREAS, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) will implement Complete Streets policy by designing, operating and
maintaining the transportation network to improve travel conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and freight in a manner
consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, transportation improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities that are recognized as contributing to
Complete Streets, including: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; access improvements
for freight; access improvements, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities
accommodation including, but not limited, to pedestrian access improvement to transit stops and stations; street trees and
landscaping; drainage; and street amenities; and
WHEREAS, SDOT will implement policies and procedures with the construction, reconstruction or other changes of transportation
facilities on arterial streets to support the creation of Complete Streets including capital improvements, re-channelization projects
and major maintenance, recognizing that all streets are different and in each case user needs must be balanced;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
- 10 -
Complete Streets Checklist
January 2010
Section 1. SDOT will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate
accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users, as
provided for below.
Section 2. SDOT will incorporate Complete Streets principles into: the Department’s Transportation Strategic Plan; Seattle Transit
Plan; Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans; Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Plan; and other SDOT plans, manuals, rules,
regulations and programs as appropriate.
Section 3. Because freight is important to the basic economy of the City and has unique right-of-way needs to support that role,
freight will be the major priority on streets classified as Major Truck Streets. Complete Street improvements that are consistent
with freight mobility but also support other modes may be considered on these streets.
Section 4. Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Complete Streets principles will not apply:
* to repairs made pursuant to the Pavement Opening and Restoration Rule (SDOT Director’s Rule 2004-02);
* to ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g., mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot
repair and surface treatments such as chip seal, or interim measures on detour or haul routes);
* where the Director of Transportation issues a documented exception concluding that application of Complete Street principles is
unnecessary or inappropriate because it would be contrary to public safety; or
* where other available means or factors indicate an absence of need, including future need.
Section 5. Complete Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements
or maintenance activities over time. It is the Mayor’s and Council’s intent that all sources of transportation funding be drawn upon
to implement Complete Streets. The City believes that maximum financial flexibility is important to implement Complete Streets
principles.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if not
approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code
Section 1.04.020.
Passed by the City Council the ____ day of _________, 2007, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this
_____ day
of __________, 2007.
President __________of the City Council
Approved by me this ____ day of _________, 2007.
_________________________________
Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor
Filed by me this ____ day of _________, 2007.
City Clerk
April 24, 2007
- 11 -
Complete Streets Checklist
Mixed Use Street
Neighborhood Green Street
Local Connector






Industrial Access
Commercial Connector
Preferred in Center City



Green Street
Consider
Main Street
Preferred
Regional Connector
Priority Elements Matrix
Street Types
January 2010
Primary Design Features
Sidewalks buffered from moving traffic by additional
sidewalk width or planting strip

Street trees and landscaping
Low landscaping or high branching trees in planting
strip

Weather protection integrated with buildings for street
level uses and at transit zones


Pedestrian scaled lighting




Emphasis on coordinated street furniture





Short-term, on-street parking

Curb bulbs where there is on-street parking

Emphasis on small curb radii and curb bulbs where onstreet parking exists








Load zones to support delivery activities
Striped bicycle lanes or sharrows, and signage on
designated bicycle routes

Bicycle access accommodated if parallel route is not
feasible






Bicycle route appropriate to share with motor vehicles
Emphasis on bicycle parking in business districts








Truck route signage

Traffic calming


Bus shelters at transit stops
Minimize curb cuts and driveways to create continuous
sidewalk



Natural Drainage encouraged
- 12 -






appendix
Appendix D
Acc ommodating Bic y cle and Pedestrian Travel: A
Recommended Approach
A US DOT P olic y Statement Integ rating Bi cycling
and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and
reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three
conditions are met:
•
Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the
roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the rightof-way or within the same transportation corridor.
•
The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively
disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively
disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost
of the larger transportation project.
•
Where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence
of need. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Guide requires "all
construction of new public streets" to include sidewalk improvements
on both sides, unless the street is a cul-de-sac with four or fewer
dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource
constraints.
In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction
and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles
per day, as in states such as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and
operational advantages for all road users in addition to providing a place for
bicyclists and pedestrians to operate.
Rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists
unless there is a minimum clear path of four feet in which a bicycle may safely
operate.
57
Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and
undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops
and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed,
operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with
disabilities, can travel safely and independently.
The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall
improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional
steps:
•
Planning projects for the long-term. Transportation facilities are
long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The
design and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in
item 1) above should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling
and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future
improvements. For example, a bridge that is likely to remain in place
for 50 years, might be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and
pedestrian use in anticipation that facilities will be available at either
end of the bridge even if that is not currently the case
•
Addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors
as well as travel along them. Even where bicyclists and pedestrians
may not commonly use a particular travel corridor that is being
improved or constructed, they will likely need to be able to cross
that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of
intersections and interchanges shall accommodate bicyclists and
pedestrians in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
•
Getting exceptions approved at a senior level. Exceptions for the
non-inclusion of bikeways and walkways shall be approved by a
senior manager and be documented with supporting data that
indicates the basis for the decision.
•
Designing facilities to the best currently available standards and
guidelines. The design of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians
should follow design guidelines and standards that are commonly
used, such as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
appendix
Streets, and the ITE Recommended Practice “Design and Safety of
Pedestrian Facilities”.
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Full text of the entire policy statement can be found at this website: http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm
58
appendix
Appendix E
are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and
convenient facilities for these modes.
US DOT P olicy Statement on Bi cycle and Pedestrian
Acc ommodation
Authority
Regulations and Recommendations – Signed March 11, 2010
Purpose
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
59
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this
policy statement to reflect the Department’s support for the development
of fully integrated active transportation networks. The establishment of
well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component
for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid
project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable,
family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce
vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require
inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation
plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should
plan, fund and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling
networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages
transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and
proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that
foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities,
and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation
programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities,
including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive and people
who choose not to drive.
Policy Statement
The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling
facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including
DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for
walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their
transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community
benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety,
environmental, transportation and quality of life — transportation agencies
This policy is based on various sections in the United States Code (U.S.C.)
and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23—Highways, Title
49—Transportation, and Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare. These
sections, provided in the Appendix, describe how bicyclists and pedestrians
of all abilities should be involved throughout the planning process, should
not be adversely affected by other transportation projects, and should
be able to track annual obligations and expenditures on non-motorized
transportation facilities.
Recommended Actions
The DOT encourages states, local governments, professional associations,
community organizations, public transportation agencies and other
government agencies to adopt similar policy statements on bicycle and
pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to
accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the
transportation system. In support of this commitment, transportation
agencies and local communities should go beyond minimum design
standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible
and convenient bicycling and walking networks. Such actions should include:
Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation
modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently
move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation
modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist,
these non-motorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly
increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation
agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given
to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an
afterthought in roadway design.
appendix
A G UIDE TO COMPLETE STREET S
Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and
abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet
accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient and interconnected
transportation networks. For example, children should have safe and
convenient options for walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who
cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and efficient transportation
choices.
Going beyond minimum design standards: Transportation agencies are
encouraged, when possible, to avoid designing walking and bicycling
facilities to the minimum standards. For example, shared-use paths that have
been designed to minimum width requirements will need retrofits as more
people use them. It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to
retrofit an older facility. Planning projects for the long-term should anticipate
likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the
provision of future improvements.
Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated
and limited-access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian
accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited-access
bridges with connections to streets or paths.
Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve
transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip data to
optimize investments. Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities
are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by establishing routine collection
of non-motorized trip information. Communities that routinely collect walking
and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to
ensure the success of new facilities. These data are also valuable in linking
walking and bicycling with transit.
Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them
over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that communities can
establish targets for increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and
bicycling.
Removing snow from sidewalks and shared-use paths: Current maintenance
provisions require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be
60
maintained in the same manner as other roadway assets. State agencies have
generally established levels of service on various routes especially as related
to snow and ice events.
Improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects: Many
transportation agencies spend most of their transportation funding on
maintenance rather than on constructing new facilities. Transportation
agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and
bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects.
Conclusion
Increased commitment to and investment in bicycle facilities and walking
networks can help meet goals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested
roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities. Walking and
bicycling provide low-cost mobility options that place fewer demands on
local roads and highways. DOT recognizes that safe and convenient walking
and bicycling facilities may look different depending on the context â&#x20AC;&#x201D;
appropriate facilities in a rural community may be different from a dense,
urban area. However, regardless of regional, climate and population density
differences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be integrated
into transportation systems. While DOT leads the effort to provide safe and
convenient accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, success will
ultimately depend on transportation agencies across the country embracing
and implementing this policy. -- Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of
Transportation
Full text of the entire policy statement can be found at this website: http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm
Cascade Bicycle Club | A Guide to Complete Streets | January 2011
Made possible by funding from
the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County
Produced by